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

This matter concerned an appeal by YQLH (the applicant) against a decision to affirm the mandatory cancellation of his visa. The applicant failed to pass the character test due to having a substantial criminal record, including offences of entering enclosed land without lawful excuse, stalking and intimidating with intent to cause fear of physical harm (domestic violence), and destroying or damaging property. The primary dispute revolved around whether there was "another reason" why the visa cancellation should be revoked, as contemplated by the Migration Act 1958 (Cth).

The court was required to determine whether the applicant's conduct, specifically the domestic violence offences, constituted family violence as defined by Ministerial Direction 99. It also had to assess the weight to be given to various considerations under Direction 99, including the protection of the Australian community, the nature and seriousness of the applicant's conduct, the risk of future offending, the applicant's remorse and efforts at rehabilitation, his ties to Australia, and the best interests of his minor children. The court needed to balance these factors to decide if they outweighed the serious nature of the applicant's offending and the risk posed to the community.

The Tribunal applied Ministerial Direction 99, noting that acts of family violence are viewed very seriously by the Australian Government and community. It found that the applicant's conduct on 26 December 2018, which involved threats and intimidation towards his former partner and the mother of his children, constituted family violence. The Tribunal considered the applicant's criminal record, including a custodial sentence of 18 months imposed in June 2021, which established a substantial criminal record. Despite the applicant's expressions of remorse and his stated intention to improve himself, the Tribunal concluded that the risk of further domestic violence offences remained an unacceptable risk to the Australian community.

The Tribunal affirmed the original decision to cancel the applicant's visa, finding that the considerations favouring non-revocation did not outweigh the serious nature of his conduct and the risk of future offending. The court found that the applicant did not pass the character test and that the requirements for revocation were not met.