YXXV 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 Class BF transitional (Permanent) visa. The applicant, a citizen of Turkey who arrived in Australia as a baby, had his visa cancelled under s 501(3A) of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth) due to having a substantial criminal record. The review was conducted by Senior Member R Cameron of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal.

The Tribunal was required to determine whether there was "another reason" why the original decision to cancel the visa should be revoked, as provided by s 501CA(4)(b) of the Act. This involved considering the primary considerations outlined in Ministerial Direction No. 90, including the protection of the Australian community, the best interests of minor children, the expectations of the Australian community, the extent of impediments if removed, and the applicant's links to the Australian community. The Tribunal also considered the applicant's history of drug and alcohol addiction, his significant health conditions, and his long residence in Australia.

In its reasoning, the Tribunal placed significant weight in favour of revoking the cancellation due to the extreme impediments the applicant would face if removed from Australia and his substantial links to the Australian community, having resided there for the majority of his life. Moderate weight was given to the best interests of minor children, specifically the applicant's grandchildren, despite a lack of existing contact. Conversely, the nature and seriousness of the applicant's past offending, which included armed robberies and intentionally causing injury, weighed against revocation. However, the Tribunal found a very low risk of reoffending, attributing his past conduct to drug and alcohol addiction, from which he had been drug-free for a considerable period. Limited weight was placed on the expectations of the Australian community and international non-refoulement obligations.

The Tribunal concluded that the weight of the considerations favoured revocation of the mandatory cancellation. Accordingly, the Tribunal set aside the delegate's decision and substituted a new decision to revoke the mandatory cancellation of the applicant's visa.