Zaia and Minister for Home Affairs (Migration)

This matter concerned an appeal by Zaia against a decision by the Minister for Home Affairs to cancel his visa. The dispute arose from the Minister's determination that Zaia did not pass the character test due to having a substantial criminal record. The case was heard by A Poljak SM.

The court was required to determine whether the mandatory cancellation of Zaia's visa was justified, specifically by considering the three primary considerations outlined in Direction No. 65: the protection of the Australian community from criminal or other serious conduct, the best interests of minor children in Australia, and the expectations of the Australian community. In assessing the protection of the Australian community, the court had to consider the nature and seriousness of Zaia's past conduct and the risk of future offending.

The court found that Zaia's criminal history was lengthy and serious, including convictions for contravening apprehended domestic violence orders, dishonesty offences, stalking, driving with illicit drugs, aggravated break and enter, common assault, possessing prohibited weapons, and demanding property with menaces. Notably, Zaia had been convicted of contravening an AVO in circumstances where he was alleged to be having sexual intercourse with a 14-year-old girl who was under the care of the Minister and residing in youth refuges, and was also supplying her with drugs. The court considered violent and sexual crimes, crimes against vulnerable individuals, court sentences, frequency of offending, and cumulative effects of repeated offending as relevant factors.

Ultimately, the court concluded that the considerations of protecting the Australian community and the expectations of the Australian community weighed heavily against the revocation of the visa cancellation. These factors significantly outweighed any other considerations. Accordingly, the decision under review, which affirmed the mandatory cancellation of Zaia's visa, was affirmed.