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

This matter concerned an application for review of a decision not to revoke the mandatory cancellation of the Applicant's visa. The Applicant, who was born in 1992, arrived in Australia in 2015 and subsequently married Ms A, with whom he had two children. The Applicant's visa was mandatorily cancelled because he did not pass the character test, stemming from convictions for violent offences against Ms A. The Tribunal was required to consider whether there was another reason to revoke this cancellation.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was the application of Ministerial Direction No. 79, specifically concerning the weight to be given to "primary considerations" and "other considerations" when determining whether to revoke a mandatory visa cancellation. The Tribunal had to assess the Applicant's conduct, the risk to the Australian community, and any other relevant factors, including the principles outlined in the Direction regarding the seriousness of violent crimes, particularly those against women and children.

The Tribunal reasoned that the Applicant's convictions for violent offences against Ms A were serious, particularly given the Direction's emphasis on the gravity of crimes against women. While acknowledging the Applicant's efforts to establish a business and his family life in Australia, and noting that his driving infraction was minor, the Tribunal found that these "other considerations" did not outweigh the seriousness of his offending and the commitment to protecting the Australian community from harm. The Tribunal applied the principles from *Suleiman v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection* regarding the appropriate weight of considerations under the Direction, concluding that the primary considerations were not outweighed by other factors in this case.

Ultimately, the Tribunal determined that it could not exercise the discretion to revoke the cancellation of the Applicant's visa. The decision under review was affirmed.