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

This matter concerned an application by YFTQ (referred to as 'the Applicant') to revoke the mandatory cancellation of his Class XB Subclass 200 Refugee visa. The Applicant, born in Sri Lanka, had a history of involvement with the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) from a young age, including combat operations. He arrived in Australia and, after approximately five years, committed offences leading to the mandatory cancellation of his visa under section 501(3A) of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth) due to having a substantial criminal record. The Applicant sought to have this cancellation revoked. The decision was made by Reitano M in the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia.

The court was required to determine whether there was "another reason" why the mandatory cancellation of the Applicant's visa should be revoked, as contemplated by section 501(3A)(a) of the *Migration Act*. This involved assessing various considerations, including the Applicant's international non-refoulement obligations, the impact of his removal on his minor children and wife who were permanent residents of Australia, and the strength, nature, and duration of his ties to the Australian community. The court also had to consider whether any of these factors, when weighed against the reasons for cancellation, constituted a sufficient "other reason" to justify revocation.

In reaching its decision, the court considered the Applicant's past involvement with the LTTE and the credibility of his claims regarding his recruitment and subsequent discharge. It weighed the non-refoulement obligations, finding they weighed moderately in favour of revocation. The court also assessed the Applicant's ties to Australia, noting he had resided there for approximately seven years and had been employed for most of that period. Crucially, the court considered the impact on his wife and children, who had established lives in Australia over the preceding five years, and the potential for future reconciliation with an estranged adult child. Despite acknowledging that the Applicant's time in Australia was not extensive and his offending occurred after five years of residence, the court found that the cumulative weight of the "other considerations," particularly the impact on his family and the non-refoulement obligations, strongly favoured revocation.

Consequently, the court set aside the delegate's decision to cancel the Applicant's visa and substituted a decision revoking the mandatory cancellation.