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

This matter concerned an application by ZJFQ (the applicant) to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (the Tribunal) for review of a mandatory visa cancellation decision made by the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs. The applicant had a substantial criminal record and did not pass the character test, leading to the mandatory cancellation of his visa. The central dispute was whether there was "another reason" why the mandatory cancellation decision should be revoked.

The Tribunal was required to determine two primary legal issues. First, whether the applicant satisfied the character test, and consequently, whether section 501CA(4)(b)(i) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) could be invoked to revoke the cancellation. Second, and crucially, the Tribunal had to consider whether, pursuant to section 501CA(4)(b)(ii) of the Act, there existed "another reason" of sufficient weight and significance to warrant the revocation of the mandatory visa cancellation decision. This involved assessing various primary and other considerations as outlined in the relevant Ministerial Direction.

In its reasoning, the Tribunal found that the applicant did not satisfy the character test due to his substantial criminal record, meaning section 501CA(4)(b)(i) could not be applied. However, when considering section 501CA(4)(b)(ii), the Tribunal applied the principles from *Viane v The Minister for Immigration and Border Protection*, which require a reason of sufficient weight to enliven the power to revoke. The Tribunal considered the primary considerations, including the protection of the Australian community, the strength, nature, and duration of the applicant's ties to Australia, and the best interests of any minor children. It also considered other relevant factors.

Ultimately, the Tribunal determined that there was indeed "another reason" why the mandatory visa cancellation decision should be revoked. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the original decision and substituted it with a decision to revoke the mandatory visa cancellation.