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

This matter concerned an application to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (the Tribunal) by Mr Wright (the Applicant) for the revocation of the mandatory cancellation of his visa. The Applicant did not pass the character test due to a substantial criminal record, which meant he could not rely on a specific provision of the Act to have the cancellation revoked. The central dispute was whether there was "another reason" to revoke the mandatory cancellation decision, as contemplated by the relevant legislative provisions and Ministerial Direction No. 99.

The Tribunal was required to determine whether, despite the Applicant failing the character test, there were sufficient countervailing factors to warrant the revocation of the mandatory visa cancellation. This involved a detailed consideration of Ministerial Direction No. 99, specifically the primary consideration of protecting the Australian community and the four "Other Considerations" outlined in paragraph 9 of the Direction: the legal consequences of the decision, the extent of impediments if removed, the impact on victims, and the impact on Australian business interests. The Tribunal also had to assess the nature and seriousness of the Applicant's conduct and the risk to the community, as well as the weight to be given to factors favouring revocation.

In its reasoning, the Tribunal acknowledged the Applicant's substantial criminal record and his failure to pass the character test. However, it applied Ministerial Direction No. 99, which mandates consideration of various factors when deciding whether to revoke a mandatory cancellation. The Tribunal found that the Applicant had resided in Australia since he was five years old and had strong familial and social ties within the country. Despite his lengthy criminal history, the Tribunal was satisfied that the Applicant's recidivist risk was acceptable and that the factors favouring revocation outweighed those against it.

Ultimately, the Tribunal found that there was another reason to revoke the mandatory cancellation of the Applicant's visa. Consequently, the decision under review was set aside and substituted with a decision to revoke the mandatory cancellation.