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

This matter concerned an application by WFFJ for the revocation of a mandatory visa cancellation made by a delegate of the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs. The applicant, a citizen of New Zealand who arrived in Australia as a child, had an extensive criminal record, including a conviction for supplying a prohibited drug for which she received a 12-month prison sentence. The Administrative Appeals Tribunal was required to determine whether there was "another reason" to revoke the visa cancellation, as the applicant did not pass the character test.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicant's circumstances presented "another reason" for the mandatory visa cancellation to be revoked, pursuant to section 501CA(4)(b)(ii) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth). This required the Tribunal to consider the principles outlined in Ministerial Direction 90, which guides decision-makers in such cases. The Tribunal had to weigh the seriousness of the applicant's criminal conduct and the need to protect the Australian community against any countervailing considerations.

The Tribunal reasoned that the applicant failed the character test as a matter of law due to her substantial criminal record, specifically her sentencing to terms of imprisonment totalling more than 12 months. Consequently, she could not rely on the provision allowing revocation if she passed the character test. The Tribunal then considered whether there was "another reason" to revoke the cancellation, referencing Direction 90's emphasis on protecting the Australian community from criminal conduct. Despite acknowledging the applicant's long ties to Australia and the evidence presented regarding her mental health and family, the Tribunal found that these factors were insufficient to outweigh the seriousness of her criminal history, particularly the drug trafficking offence.

Ultimately, the Tribunal affirmed the reviewable decision, concluding that there was not another reason to revoke the mandatory cancellation of the applicant's visa.