Van Maanen and Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs (Migration)

This matter concerned an application by the Applicant, Mr. Van Maanen, to revoke the mandatory cancellation of his Class TY Subclass 444 Special Category (Temporary) visa. The Applicant did not pass the character test, which triggered the mandatory cancellation. The Applicant sought to have this cancellation revoked, arguing that there was another reason to do so. The decision was made by Senior Member R Bellamy of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether there was "another reason" to revoke the mandatory cancellation of the Applicant's visa, notwithstanding that he failed to meet the character test. This required the Tribunal to consider the relevant Ministerial Direction, specifically Ministerial Direction No. 90, which outlines the considerations to be taken into account when exercising this discretion. The Tribunal had to weigh the primary considerations against other considerations, including the extent of any impediments the Applicant might face if removed from Australia.

The Tribunal considered the Applicant's personal circumstances, including his age, health, and his history of offending. It noted that while the Applicant had committed an assault offence at a young age, for which he received probation without a recorded conviction, this was a primary consideration weighing against revocation. However, the Tribunal also examined the "other considerations" under paragraph 9 of Ministerial Direction No. 90. It found that the Applicant, a healthy 27-year-old male, had reasonable employment prospects in New Zealand, given his skills and qualifications, and that New Zealand presented no significant language or cultural barriers. While acknowledging the Applicant's concern about a lack of familial or social support in New Zealand, the Tribunal found that he had established social connections there in the past. Ultimately, the Tribunal concluded that it could not exercise the discretion to revoke the cancellation of the Applicant's visa.

The decision under review was affirmed, meaning the mandatory cancellation of Mr. Van Maanen's visa was upheld.