ZGWQ and Minister for Home Affairs (Migration)

This matter concerned an application for review of the mandatory cancellation of the applicant's visa. The applicant, born in New Zealand in 1988 and arriving in Australia in 1990, had a substantial criminal record dating from July 2006 to May 2018, involving 35 offences. These included repeated convictions for domestic violence offences, contravening apprehended violence orders, and violent offences such as wielding a knife in public, affray, and stalking. The applicant had spent over 15 months in prison between March 2014 and March 2018, and his visa had previously been cancelled in July 2015 under section 501CA(4) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth), though this cancellation was later revoked. The decision was made by Dr L Bygrave, Member, of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the discretion to revoke the mandatory cancellation of the applicant's visa should be exercised, having regard to the considerations outlined in Direction No. 79. This involved assessing the protection of the Australian community from criminal or other serious conduct, the nature and seriousness of the applicant's conduct, the risk to the community, the best interests of any minor children, and the expectations of the Australian community. The Tribunal also considered other factors, including the strength of the applicant's ties to Australia, impact on business interests, impact on victims, and impediments to removal.

In reaching its decision, the Tribunal gave greater weight to the primary considerations. It found that the applicant's criminal record demonstrated a pattern of serious offending from a young age, particularly concerning domestic violence and violent behaviour, often linked to alcohol consumption. The Tribunal noted the repeated warnings from courts and the applicant's failure to engage successfully with rehabilitation programs, highlighting judicial comments that the applicant posed a danger to those around him, especially when intoxicated, and was incapable of complying with court orders. While acknowledging the applicant's family ties in Australia and the care his mother provided to his younger brother, the Tribunal concluded that, on balance, the primary considerations outweighed the other considerations.

Consequently, the Tribunal was satisfied that it was not appropriate to revoke the decision to cancel the applicant's visa. The decision under review was affirmed.