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

This matter concerned the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs' decision to cancel the Applicant's Class BC, Subclass 100 Partner (Migrant) permanent visa due to failure to pass the character test. The Applicant, a citizen of Vietnam, sought to have this cancellation revoked. The decision was made by Mr S Evans, a Member of the Tribunal.

The legal issues before the Tribunal were whether there was another reason to revoke the visa cancellation, specifically considering the criteria outlined in Direction No. 79, which includes the protection of the Australian community, the expectations of the Australian community, the strength, nature, and duration of the Applicant's ties to Australia, and the extent of impediments if removed. The Tribunal was required to weigh these factors against the seriousness of the Applicant's criminal conduct.

The Tribunal considered the Applicant's extensive ties to Australia, including his family members who are Australian citizens or permanent residents, his consistent employment history, and his relationship with his current partner, Ms Nguyen. However, the Tribunal found that the Applicant's criminal conduct, involving the cultivation of cannabis on two separate occasions, was serious. Despite submissions that the offending was at the lower end of seriousness, the Tribunal noted the Applicant's reoffending after his first sentence expired and that his offending had escalated from an intensive corrections order to a term of imprisonment. The Tribunal assessed a moderate risk of the Applicant reoffending, particularly if he experienced another depressive episode, and concluded that this risk was unacceptable in light of the government's commitment to protecting the Australian community. The Tribunal also considered the best interests of any minor children, though the provided text does not detail the findings on this point.

The Tribunal concluded that the primary consideration of the protection of the Australian community weighed strongly in favour of affirming the cancellation decision. The Tribunal found that a moderate risk of further harm of a similar nature to that caused by the Applicant's repeated offences was unacceptable.