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

This matter concerned an application to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) by XRXL (the applicant) seeking to revoke the cancellation of his Class BB Subclass 155 Five Year Resident Return visa. The cancellation had been made by a delegate of the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs (the respondent) under section 501CA(4) of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth). The applicant sought to have the visa cancellation revoked, arguing that various "other considerations" should be given appropriate weight, including his family circumstances and efforts at rehabilitation.

The AAT was required to determine the appropriate weight to be given to both primary and other considerations when assessing whether to revoke the visa cancellation. Specifically, the Tribunal had to consider the applicant's criminal history, the nature and seriousness of his conduct, and the risk to the Australian community should he commit further offences. The Tribunal also had to consider the applicant's submissions regarding his rehabilitation efforts, his insight into his past conduct, and the importance of his family, particularly his child. The respondent, in turn, argued for the seriousness of the applicant's offences, the risk of re-offending, and the low tolerance the community has for such risks.

In its reasoning, the AAT applied the principles outlined in Direction 79 (formerly Direction 65), which requires decision-makers to give "appropriate weight" to both primary and other considerations, generally giving primary considerations greater weight. The Tribunal found that the applicant's past conduct, including importation offences involving precursor chemicals for methamphetamine and a previous cannabis cultivation offence, was serious. It noted that the sentence imposed for the importation offences reflected this gravity. The Tribunal also considered the applicant's submissions about his rehabilitation, including his exemplary prison record and work release, but viewed these in light of his previous drug offence and lack of remorse at sentencing. The Tribunal ultimately found that the applicant's submissions regarding his child and family, and his rehabilitation efforts, did not significantly alter the analysis of the primary considerations.

The AAT affirmed the decision of the respondent's delegate not to revoke the cancellation of the applicant's visa.