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

This matter concerned an application by the Applicant, Mr Wardhana, for the non-revocation of the mandatory cancellation of his Partner (Subclass 100) visa. The Applicant did not pass the character test due to his criminal offending. The dispute before Senior Member Rebecca Bellamy of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal was whether there was "another reason" to revoke the mandatory cancellation decision, as contemplated by section 501CA(4) of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth).

The Tribunal was required to determine whether, in light of Ministerial Direction No. 110, there were sufficient grounds to revoke the mandatory cancellation of the Applicant's visa. This involved assessing the primary consideration of protecting the Australian community from harm, and considering the nature and seriousness of the Applicant's conduct, including the frequency and cumulative effect of his offending, as well as the risk to the community should he commit further offences. The Tribunal also had to consider any other relevant considerations.

The Tribunal found that the Applicant had a history of frequent offending, with over 50 separate offences primarily involving property crime, theft, and driving offences, committed over a two-year period. The Tribunal noted that the theft of a vehicle and tools, and the subsequent demand for money for its return, was particularly serious. The Applicant also had a history of drug use, including heroin, and had relapsed on multiple occasions after periods of abstinence. Despite efforts to address his drug use, including participation in treatment programs, the Applicant admitted to experiencing cravings for heroin. The Tribunal concluded that the Applicant's conduct to date was serious and that there was a risk to the Australian community. Weighing this against any other considerations, the Tribunal determined that there was not "another reason" to revoke the mandatory cancellation of the Applicant's visa.

Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the decision under review, meaning the mandatory cancellation of the Applicant's visa was not revoked.