ZNBG and Minister for Home Affairs (Migration)

This matter concerned an application by ZNBG, a citizen of New Zealand, to revoke the mandatory cancellation of his Class TY Subclass 444 Special Category visa. The cancellation was based on ZNBG failing to pass the character test due to serious criminal offending, specifically violent offences against Partner 3. The Administrative Appeals Tribunal was required to determine whether there was "another reason" under section 501CA(4)(b)(ii) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) to revoke the visa cancellation, as the discretion to revoke based on passing the character test was not applicable.

The Tribunal considered the evidence presented, including extensive documentation and oral testimony from ZNBG, his family, partners, and children. ZNBG had been convicted of multiple offences, including assault occasioning actual bodily harm, stalking, and property damage, resulting in an aggregate sentence of 14 months imprisonment. The sentencing remarks highlighted the violent and aggressive nature of the offending, particularly given ZNBG was on a good behaviour bond and an apprehended violence order at the time. However, the court also noted ZNBG's otherwise good character, the recent onset of his criminal history, and potential explanations such as substance abuse and a toxic relationship.

Applying the principles from *Gaspar v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection*, the Tribunal conducted an evaluative process of the factors for and against revocation. While acknowledging the seriousness of ZNBG's violent conduct, the Tribunal found that his lack of prior criminal history, the impulsive nature of the offending within a dysfunctional relationship, his subsequent cessation of drug use, and his genuine remorse and insight were significant mitigating factors. The Tribunal also noted ZNBG's successful engagement with rehabilitation programs, expert evidence indicating a low risk of reoffending, and the presence of protective factors such as a new supportive relationship, accommodation, employment prospects, and family support.

Ultimately, the Tribunal was satisfied that there was another reason to revoke the mandatory visa cancellation. The Tribunal set aside the decision and substituted a decision to revoke the cancellation, finding that ZNBG's rehabilitation, remorse, and the specific circumstances of his offending, when weighed against the seriousness of the conduct, justified revocation.