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

This matter concerned an application for review of a delegate's decision not to revoke the mandatory cancellation of the applicant's visa. The applicant had a substantial criminal record, including convictions for negligently causing serious injury, supplying drugs of dependence to a child, persistent contravention of family violence orders, threats to inflict serious injury, false imprisonment, and making threats to kill. The Minister's delegate had determined that the applicant did not pass the character test due to this criminal record, leading to the mandatory cancellation of his visa. The applicant sought review of this decision, arguing that the cancellation should be revoked.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether there was "another reason" why the visa cancellation should be revoked, pursuant to section 501CA(4)(b) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth). This required the Tribunal to consider the non-revocation factors outlined in Ministerial Direction 99, including the protection of the Australian community, the strength, nature, and duration of the applicant's ties to Australia, the best interests of any minor children in Australia, and the expectations of the Australian community. The Tribunal also had to assess the nature and seriousness of the applicant's conduct and the risk to the community should he re-offend.

The Tribunal reasoned that the applicant's extensive criminal history, particularly the violent offences and acts of family violence, were considered very serious under Ministerial Direction 99. While acknowledging the applicant's stated desire for rehabilitation, his past conduct weighed heavily against the exercise of discretion to revoke the cancellation. The Tribunal considered the applicant's ties to Australia, including his long period of residence and his children, but found that these were outweighed by the seriousness of his criminal conduct and the need to protect the Australian community. The Tribunal ultimately affirmed the delegate's decision not to revoke the visa cancellation.