Wickramakarulu Arachchi and Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs (Migration)

This case concerned an appeal by the applicant, Mr Wickramakarulu Arachchi, against the mandatory cancellation of his visa by the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs. The applicant had a substantial criminal record, meaning he did not pass the character test under s 501(6)(a) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth). The central dispute revolved around whether there was "another reason" under s 501CA(4)(b)(ii) of the Act why the mandatory cancellation decision should be revoked. The matter was heard by Deputy Britten-Jones P.

The legal issues before the court were whether the applicant's circumstances constituted "another reason" to revoke the mandatory visa cancellation, notwithstanding his substantial criminal record. This required an assessment of the factors for and against revocation, as outlined in Direction 99, to determine if the weight of these considerations outweighed the public interest in protecting the Australian community from criminal activity. The court had to evaluate the strength, nature, and duration of the applicant's ties to Australia, the best interests of his minor children, the extent of impediments to his removal, and the impact on Australian business interests, against the countervailing considerations of community protection.

Deputy Britten-Jones P reasoned that while the applicant had a substantial criminal record, including serious offences such as demanding property by oral threats, his personal circumstances presented compelling reasons for revocation. The court noted the applicant's difficult childhood, his diagnosis of complex post-traumatic stress disorder, and his strong ties to Australia, including his business interests and his two Australian-born children. The court found that the primary considerations, specifically the strength of his ties to Australia, the best interests of his minor children, the impediments to his removal, and the impact on Australian business interests, outweighed the countervailing considerations.

Consequently, the court ordered that the decision to cancel the applicant's visa be set aside and substituted with a decision to revoke the cancellation.