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

This matter concerned an application for review of a decision by the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs to affirm the mandatory cancellation of the applicant's Subclass 444 Special Category (Temporary) visa. The applicant did not pass the character test, leading to the mandatory cancellation. The central dispute revolved around whether there was "another reason" to revoke this cancellation, considering Ministerial Direction No. 79.

The court was required to determine the appropriate weight to be given to the "other considerations" in the context of Ministerial Direction No. 79, particularly in light of the applicant's extensive criminal history. This involved assessing whether any of these "other considerations" should be afforded greater weight than the primary considerations, such as the protection of the Australian community from criminal activity. The court also had to consider the nature and seriousness of the applicant's conduct to date and the risk to the Australian community should further offences be committed.

The court reasoned that while Ministerial Direction No. 79 requires both primary and other considerations to be given appropriate weight, primary considerations are generally to be given greater weight unless specific circumstances warrant otherwise. The applicant's lengthy history of offending, spanning over 20 years and encompassing more than 100 offences across various categories including drug use, weapons offences, assault, stalking, property crimes, and repeated breaches of court orders, was found to be a significant factor. The court noted that the applicant's explanations for his offending, such as driving while disqualified to travel for work, were not sufficient to outweigh the seriousness of his conduct and the risk posed to the community. Consequently, the court found that it could not exercise the discretion to revoke the visa cancellation.

The decision under review was affirmed, meaning the mandatory cancellation of the applicant's visa was upheld.