TTCT and Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs (Migration)

This matter concerned the review of a mandatory visa cancellation decision made under section 501(3A) of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth) concerning the applicant, a citizen of Somalia. The applicant had an extensive criminal history, including multiple sentences of imprisonment for crimes of violence and polysubstance abuse. The Minister had previously cancelled the applicant's visa, and subsequent decisions not to revoke this cancellation had been set aside by the Federal Court on multiple occasions due to jurisdictional error. The applicant was subsequently granted a Bridging (Removal Pending) Visa following the High Court's decision in *NZYQ*.

The Tribunal was required to determine whether there was another reason to revoke the mandatory visa cancellation, considering Ministerial Direction No. 99, which outlines the framework for assessing such cases. This involved evaluating the nature and seriousness of the applicant's criminal conduct, including violent crimes and repeated offending, as well as the applicant's personal circumstances, including his claims of PTSD and efforts at rehabilitation and reintegration into the community. The Tribunal also had to consider the impact of the *NZYQ* decision on the practicability of the applicant's removal from Australia.

The Tribunal affirmed the reviewable decision to maintain the visa cancellation. It found that the applicant's criminal history, particularly the serious violent offending and repeated disregard for formal warnings, weighed heavily against revocation. While acknowledging the applicant's claims of PTSD and his efforts to address substance abuse and find employment, the Tribunal concluded that these factors did not outweigh the significant risk posed by his past conduct and the seriousness of his offending. The Tribunal noted that the applicant's eligibility to apply for a Protection Visa was a relevant consideration, but ultimately found that the cumulative effect of his criminal history and the failure to pass the character test meant that revocation was not warranted.