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

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal considered the mandatory cancellation of the applicant's visa, which had been cancelled due to the applicant possessing a substantial criminal record. The applicant sought revocation of this cancellation decision.

The Tribunal was required to determine whether there was "another reason" why the original decision to cancel the visa should be revoked, having regard to Direction No. 79. This involved assessing various primary and other considerations outlined in the Direction, including the protection of the Australian community, the best interests of minor children, the expectations of the Australian community, international non-refoulement obligations, the strength and duration of ties to Australia, and the extent of impediments to removal.

The Tribunal reasoned that while the applicant's failure to be law-abiding weighed in favour of non-revocation, this factor was given less weight due to the applicant's lengthy and positive contribution to the Australian community. The Tribunal also considered the applicant's claims of fearing serious harm if returned to Iran or Iraq, noting that these concerns were relevant to Australia's international non-refoulement obligations. The Tribunal acknowledged the applicant's statelessness and his conversion to Christianity as factors contributing to his fear of harm. The Tribunal found that the applicant's statelessness and the potential consequences of his removal meant that removal would not be reasonably practicable, leading to indefinite detention.

The Tribunal set aside the decision to refuse to revoke the mandatory cancellation of the applicant's visa.