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

This matter concerned an application by Mr Wilson, a New Zealand citizen who had resided in Australia since childhood, to revoke the mandatory cancellation of his subclass 444 special category visa. The cancellation was based on Mr Wilson failing the character test due to a substantial criminal record, including drug-related and domestic violence offences. The decision-maker was required to consider whether there was "another reason" to revoke the mandatory cancellation, guided by Direction No. 79.

The primary legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the mandatory cancellation of Mr Wilson's visa should be revoked, and if so, what weight should be given to various considerations under Direction No. 79. Specifically, the Tribunal had to assess the protection of the Australian community from criminal conduct, the best interests of Mr Wilson's minor children, and the expectations of the Australian community. The Tribunal was also required to consider "other considerations" such as the strength and duration of Mr Wilson's ties to Australia.

The Tribunal reasoned that Mr Wilson's criminal offences were very serious and posed a real risk of harm to the Australian community, weighing significantly against revocation. While acknowledging Mr Wilson's ties to his three minor children and his stated desire to play a positive parental role, the Tribunal found a lack of substantial evidence regarding the children's current circumstances and the nature of their relationship with Mr Wilson, particularly given his recent incarceration and periods of absence. The Tribunal noted that the evidence presented was insufficient to give significant weight to the best interests of the children as a reason to revoke the cancellation.

Ultimately, the Tribunal affirmed the decision to cancel Mr Wilson's visa, finding that the seriousness of his criminal conduct and the risk he posed to the community outweighed the considerations in favour of revocation, including the best interests of his minor children.