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

This matter concerned an application for review of a delegate of the Minister's decision to refuse the Applicant's partner visa on the grounds that he failed to pass the character test under section 501(1) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth). The Applicant, a 32-year-old male citizen of India, had a history of offending dating back to 2011, including driving offences, stealing as a servant, and causing detriment by fraud through the fraudulent use of stolen credit cards. He had also wilfully misled authorities by falsely nominating his mother as the driver of his vehicle on two occasions. The case was heard by C Huntly M.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the Applicant passed the character test as defined by section 501(6) of the Act, and if not, whether there was "another reason" why the decision to refuse the visa should be revoked, as contemplated by Ministerial Direction 90. The character test requires that a person not pose a risk of engaging in criminal conduct in Australia. Direction 90 outlines various considerations for decision-makers, including the protection of the Australian community, the nature and seriousness of the applicant's conduct, the risk of further offending, the best interests of minor children, community expectations, and the strength of ties to Australia.

The court found that the Applicant did not pass the character test due to his history of dishonesty and fraud, which constituted a risk of engaging in criminal conduct. In considering whether there was "another reason" to revoke the decision, the court applied the principles in Direction 90, particularly regarding the protection of the Australian community. The court noted the Applicant's repeated dishonest conduct, including the fraudulent use of stolen credit cards and wilful misleading of authorities, as serious matters. While other considerations such as ties to Australia and the best interests of any minor children were to be weighed, the court concluded that the Applicant's failure to pass the character test was not outweighed by any "another reason" that would justify revoking the refusal decision.

The court affirmed the original decision to refuse the Applicant's partner visa.