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

The applicant, VPWH, sought judicial review of a decision by the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs to refuse to grant a protection visa. The central issue before the Federal Circuit Court of Australia was whether the applicant met the criterion for a protection visa under section 36(1C)(b) of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth), specifically whether the applicant had been convicted of a particularly serious crime and posed a danger to the Australian community.

The court was required to determine if the applicant was a danger to the Australian community, a question to be answered by considering only relevant matters and not balancing them against the consequences to the applicant of returning to Sierra Leone. This involved assessing the applicant's criminal record, including a conviction for stalking/intimidation, and various incidents that occurred while the applicant was in immigration detention. The court also had to consider the applicant's explanations for his conduct and his overall credibility.

In its reasoning, the court found that while the applicant had a criminal record, his explanations for some of the incidents were coherent and plausible, and his demeanour throughout the hearing added to his credibility. The court concluded that his conduct in the community was not as serious as his criminal record might suggest and that he had generally behaved well during his time in prison and detention. Specifically, the court was not satisfied that the applicant had assaulted other detainees in several reported incidents. However, the court was satisfied that the applicant was involved as the aggressor in a physical altercation in June 2019. Despite this, the court ultimately determined that, on reasonable grounds, the applicant was not a danger to the Australian community for the purposes of the relevant legislative provisions.

Consequently, the court set aside the reviewable decision and remitted the matter to the Respondent for reconsideration, directing that the applicant be considered to satisfy the criterion in section 36(1C)(b) of the *Migration Act 1958* and that section 36(2C)(b)(ii) of the Act was not engaged.