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

This case concerned an application for review of a delegate of the Minister's decision not to revoke the mandatory cancellation of the applicant's visa. The applicant, a 58-year-old New Zealand citizen who had resided in Australia since 1987, with a significant period of absence, had his visa cancelled under section 501(3A) of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth) due to a substantial criminal record. This record included convictions for sexual offences, family violence, and other serious criminal matters, with a medium to high risk of reoffending assessed. The applicant sought revocation of the cancellation under section 501CA(4) of the Act.

The primary legal issue before the Administrative Appeals Tribunal was whether there was "another reason" why the mandatory cancellation of the applicant's visa should be revoked, as provided for in section 501CA(4)(b)(ii) of the Act. This required the Tribunal to consider the specific circumstances of the case, taking into account Ministerial Direction 99, which guides decision-makers on such matters. The applicant conceded that he did not pass the character test, thus precluding revocation under section 501CA(4)(b)(i).

The Tribunal's reasoning focused on the applicant's criminal conduct, his risk of reoffending, and his engagement with rehabilitation and mental health treatment. It found that the applicant had not provided a complete picture of his history, had a history of non-compliance with medication, and lacked insight into his mental health conditions. Furthermore, the Tribunal was not satisfied that the applicant would remain drug and alcohol free, noting his long-term dependency and continued use. Risk assessments indicated a medium to high risk of reoffending, which the Tribunal deemed unacceptable. The Tribunal also considered the applicant's family circumstances, finding they did not constitute protective factors in this context.

Ultimately, the Tribunal affirmed the reviewable decision, concluding that there was no other reason to revoke the decision to cancel the applicant's visa. The applicant's serious criminal record, the assessed risk of reoffending, and his unmet treatment needs, coupled with a lack of genuine engagement with rehabilitation, led to the determination that the protection of the Australian community outweighed any other considerations.