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

This matter concerned the delegate of the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs' decision not to revoke the mandatory cancellation of the Applicant's visa. The Applicant, a Chinese national, had a substantial criminal record, including financial crimes and driving offences, which meant he did not pass the character test. The central dispute was whether there was another reason to revoke the cancellation of his visa, considering various primary and other considerations as outlined in Direction 99.

The court was required to determine whether the Applicant's visa cancellation should be revoked, despite his failure to pass the character test. This involved assessing the weight to be given to primary considerations such as the protection of the Australian community from criminal or other serious conduct, and family violence committed by the Applicant. The court also had to consider other factors, including the strength, nature, and duration of the Applicant's ties to the Australian community, the best interests of his minor children and nephew, and the legal consequences of the decision, such as claims of re-prosecution if returned to China and impediments to removal.

The Member considered the Applicant's serious financial crimes, which involved dealing with substantial amounts of money through various financial institutions and overseas recipients, and his addiction to gambling as a contributing factor. The Applicant's domestic violence incident was also examined, with the Applicant disputing the details of the event. While acknowledging the Applicant's remorse and participation in rehabilitation programs, the Member found that the Applicant had a demonstrated pattern of deflecting blame, casting doubt on the sincerity of his remorse. The Member concluded that the Applicant's offending to date had been serious, and further offending posed a risk of serious harm to the Australian community, leading to a medium risk of reoffending due to financial stress. This primary consideration weighed against revoking the cancellation and was afforded significant weight.

The Member affirmed the delegate's decision not to revoke the cancellation of the Applicant's visa.