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

This matter concerned an application by Ms Vu to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (Tribunal) for a review of a decision not to revoke the mandatory cancellation of her Class BS Subclass 801 Partner visa. The visa had been cancelled under s 501(3A) of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth) following Ms Vu's conviction for serious drug offences and her subsequent sentencing to a term of imprisonment of 12 months or more.

The Tribunal was required to determine two key issues: first, whether Ms Vu passed the character test as defined in s 501(6) of the Act; and second, if she did not pass the character test, whether there was "another reason" why the decision to cancel her visa should be revoked under s 501CA(4)(b)(ii) of the Act. In considering the second issue, the Tribunal was directed to have regard to Ministerial Direction 99, which outlines primary and other considerations relevant to such decisions, including the protection of the Australian community, family violence, ties to Australia, the best interests of minor children, and community expectations.

The Tribunal considered evidence presented by Ms Vu, including her statutory declaration and oral evidence regarding her history of domestic violence in Vietnam, her fear of her former husband, and concerns for the safety of her mother and son. Ms Vu also provided evidence of her personal challenges, including family separation and witnessing parental suicide, and explained that her criminal conduct stemmed from a lack of understanding of the detrimental effects of drugs, which she now regrets and has addressed through a SMART recovery course. Despite these submissions, the Tribunal found that the primary considerations, particularly the protection of the Australian community from criminal conduct, outweighed the other factors presented.

Ultimately, the Tribunal decided to affirm the decision under review, meaning that the cancellation of Ms Vu's visa was upheld and her application to the Tribunal was unsuccessful.