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

The applicant, VGJG, sought to have the mandatory cancellation of his visa revoked. The Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs had cancelled the applicant's visa under section 501(3A) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) because the applicant did not pass the character test due to having a substantial criminal record. The Administrative Appeals Tribunal was required to determine whether there was "another reason" why the visa cancellation should be revoked, pursuant to section 501CA(4)(b)(ii) of the Act, and in accordance with Ministerial Direction 90.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicant had established "another reason" to revoke the mandatory visa cancellation, given that he did not pass the character test. This required the Tribunal to consider the factors outlined in Direction 90, including international non-refoulement obligations, the extent of impediments if removed, the impact on victims, and the applicant's links to the Australian community. The Tribunal also had to assess the nature and seriousness of the applicant's conduct and the risk to the Australian community.

The Tribunal reasoned that while the applicant had a substantial criminal record, including convictions for stalking, intimidation, contravening an apprehended violence order, and high-range drink-driving, these offences were linked to his alcohol abuse and mental health conditions. Evidence was presented regarding the applicant's diagnosed mental health conditions, his history of family violence, and the potential impediments he would face if removed to Kenya, including discrimination as a bisexual man and the risk of family violence. The Tribunal found that these factors, particularly the potential impact on the applicant's safety and well-being in Kenya and the support he received from some victims in Australia, constituted "another reason" to revoke the visa cancellation.

The Tribunal set aside the delegate's decision not to revoke the mandatory cancellation of the applicant's visa and substituted a decision to revoke the cancellation.