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

This matter concerned an application for review of the Minister's decision not to revoke the mandatory cancellation of the Applicant's Class BB Subclass 155 visa. The Applicant did not pass the character test, which triggered the mandatory cancellation. The central dispute revolved around whether there was another reason to revoke this cancellation, considering Ministerial Direction No 90.

The court was required to determine the weight to be given to various considerations under Ministerial Direction No 90, specifically concerning the protection of the Australian community from criminal or other serious conduct. This involved assessing the nature and seriousness of the Applicant's conduct, the risk of future offending, and any other relevant factors that might constitute "another reason" to revoke the cancellation. The Applicant sought to rely on factors including domestic violence, mental health issues, and the availability of healthcare in South Korea.

Deputy J Sosso P considered the primary considerations outlined in the Direction, including the protection of the Australian community. The court examined the Applicant's past conduct and the potential risk to the community. While the Applicant presented evidence relating to domestic violence, mental health, and healthcare access in South Korea, the court found that these factors, when weighed against the seriousness of the conduct that led to the character test failure, did not constitute "another reason" to revoke the mandatory cancellation. The court's reasoning focused on the specific requirements of Ministerial Direction No 90 and the evidence presented in relation to each consideration.

The application for review was affirmed, meaning the mandatory cancellation of the Applicant's visa was not revoked.