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

This matter concerned an application by VLCN (the Applicant) to review the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs' decision to affirm the mandatory cancellation of his Class EN Subclass 186 Employer Nomination (Permanent) visa. The Applicant did not pass the character test, leading to the mandatory cancellation of his visa. The central dispute was whether there was "another reason" to revoke this cancellation, particularly in light of Ministerial Direction No. 90.

The court was required to determine whether the Applicant's circumstances constituted "another reason" to revoke the mandatory cancellation of his visa, as contemplated by the relevant provisions of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) and Ministerial Direction No. 90. This involved assessing various factors, including the Applicant's history of offending, his personal circumstances, and any potential international non-refoulement obligations.

The court considered the Applicant's history of drug use and offending, noting that much of it commenced during his youth. While acknowledging the context of his juvenile drug use, the court stated it had not had regard to juvenile offences in his criminal record. The court also examined the Applicant's claims regarding potential harm if returned to South Africa, referencing his belief that crime was increasing and that white people were primary victims. However, the court found that insufficient reliable country information was presented to make a proper assessment of his non-refoulement claims under sections 36(2)(a) and 36(2)(aa) of the Act. The court indicated that the Applicant could pursue these claims through a Protection visa application. Ultimately, the court found that the application of Ministerial Direction No. 90 favoured the non-revocation of the visa cancellation.

The decision under review was affirmed.