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

This matter concerned an application for review of a decision to affirm the mandatory cancellation of the Applicant's Class VB Subclass 886 (skilled sponsored) visa. The Applicant did not pass the character test due to a history of criminal offending, including offences involving domestic violence and illicit drug use. The core of the dispute revolved around whether the discretion to refuse to grant the visa should be exercised, considering the Applicant's circumstances against the framework provided by Ministerial Direction No. 90. The decision was made by A G Melick AO SC, Deputy President, of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal.

The Tribunal was required to determine the appropriate weight to be given to both primary and other considerations under Ministerial Direction No. 90, particularly in light of the Applicant's criminal history and the risk posed to the Australian community. This involved assessing the nature and seriousness of the Applicant's conduct, the risk of reoffending, and the prospects of rehabilitation. Specifically, the Tribunal had to consider the seriousness of family violence offences, the Applicant's compliance with medication and drug testing regimes, and any evidence of rehabilitation or insight into his behaviour.

The Tribunal reasoned that while the Applicant had been advised of the consequences of further domestic violence offences, he had failed to demonstrate significant rehabilitation. His non-compliance with medication and positive drug tests indicated an ongoing risk. The Tribunal noted that crimes of a violent nature, particularly against women and children, and acts of family violence are viewed very seriously by the Australian Government and community. Given the Applicant's history, including serious offences committed while subject to good behaviour bonds and apprehended violence orders, and his failure to engage in recommended counselling, the Tribunal concluded that revoking the visa cancellation would place the Australian community at substantial risk. Therefore, the decision under review was affirmed.