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

This matter concerned an application for the non-revocation of a mandatory cancellation of the Applicant's Class XA Subclass 866 Protection visa. The Applicant sought to have the cancellation revoked, arguing that he passed the character test and that there was another reason why the decision to cancel his visa should be revoked. The decision was made by A Julian-Armitage M.

The court was required to determine whether the Applicant met the character requirements for the visa, specifically considering his criminal record and the risk he posed to the Australian community. A key issue was the application of Ministerial Direction No. 90, which provides a framework for decision-makers considering visa cancellations and refusals based on character grounds. The court had to assess the Applicant's claims of remorse and rehabilitation against his history of offending and the potential for future harm.

The court found that the Applicant's offending conduct was "very serious" and that any re-offending would potentially cause serious harm to individuals and the Australian community at unacceptable levels. Little weight was given to the Applicant's claims of remorse and low risk of re-offending due to limited evidence of rehabilitation and a perceived lack of proactivity in seeking help. The court concluded that the risk of re-offending was unacceptable, and the Applicant posed a potentially significant risk of harm to the Australian community, which weighed heavily against revoking the mandatory visa cancellation. The court noted that the Applicant had not treated a previous visa cancellation and subsequent revocation as a wake-up call, as his offending continued.

The decision affirmed the mandatory cancellation of the Applicant's visa.