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

This matter concerned an application to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (the Tribunal) for review of a delegate's decision not to revoke the mandatory cancellation of the Applicant's Class TY Subclass 444 Special Category (Temporary) Visa. The Applicant did not pass the character test due to a "substantial criminal history," and the central dispute was whether there was "another reason" to revoke the mandatory cancellation of his visa, as contemplated by subsection 501CA(4)(b)(ii) of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth).

The Tribunal was required to determine whether, despite the Applicant not passing the character test, there existed another compelling reason to revoke the mandatory visa cancellation. This involved considering the factors outlined in Ministerial Direction 90, which guides decision-makers in such circumstances. The Applicant's history of drug use, stemming from childhood abuse, and his subsequent criminal offending, including breaches of apprehended violence orders, were central to the assessment. The Tribunal also had to weigh the interests of his teenage daughters and his partner, who suffers from mental illness, against the risk of reoffending.

In its reasoning, the Tribunal acknowledged the Applicant's substantial criminal record and the inherent risk of reoffending, affording this significant weight against revocation. However, it also considered other factors under Direction 90, including the Applicant's efforts to address his substance abuse, his strong ties to the Australian community, and the potential impact of his removal on his family members, particularly his children and partner. The Tribunal found that the Applicant's history of drug use was linked to significant childhood trauma and that he had taken steps towards rehabilitation. The Tribunal ultimately concluded that there was another reason why the mandatory cancellation of the Applicant's visa should be revoked.

Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the delegate's decision and substituted it with a decision to revoke the mandatory cancellation of the Applicant's visa.