WRFG and Minister for Home Affairs (Migration)

This matter concerned an appeal by WRFG against a decision by the Minister for Home Affairs to mandatorily cancel the applicant's visa. The cancellation was based on the applicant having a substantial criminal record, including serious offending against women. The core dispute revolved around whether the discretion to revoke this mandatory cancellation should have been exercised.

The court was required to determine the weight to be given to various considerations under Direction 79 when deciding whether to revoke the visa cancellation. Specifically, the court had to assess the strength, nature, and duration of the applicant's ties to Australia, the extent of impediments to his removal to his home country, and the applicant's non-refoulement obligations. These were to be weighed against the primary considerations of protecting the Australian community and the expectations of the Australian community.

Deputy President Britten-Jones P found that while the applicant had non-refoulement obligations and some impediments to removal to Afghanistan, these were outweighed by the primary considerations. The applicant had resided in Australia for only nine years, arriving at age 52, and had spent the last four years in prison and detention. His ties to Australia were limited, with no family and few friends. The court considered that the applicant began offending relatively soon after arriving in Australia and that his time in the community could not be characterised as positive due to his offending. The court concluded that there was an unacceptable risk of harm to the Australian community, particularly women, if the applicant were returned to the community, and that the Australian community expected non-citizens engaging in such behaviour to have their visas cancelled.

The appeal was dismissed, with the decision to affirm the mandatory cancellation of the applicant's visa.