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

This matter concerned an application by ZNKS, a Syrian citizen, to review the decision not to revoke the mandatory cancellation of his Subclass 200 Refugee visa. The visa cancellation was triggered by ZNKS's conviction for sexual offending against a child, which meant he failed to pass the character test under section 501(6)(e) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth). The Administrative Appeals Tribunal was required to determine if there was "another reason" to revoke the cancellation decision, as mandated by section 501CA(4)(b)(ii) of the Act.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the evidence presented by ZNKS constituted "another reason" to revoke the visa cancellation, notwithstanding his failure to pass the character test. This required the Tribunal to consider the principles established in cases such as *Viane* and *Bettencourt*, which outline the obligation to genuinely consider substantial and significant claims made in representations for revocation. The Tribunal was also required to assess the evidence available at the time of its decision, as per *Nathanson*.

The Tribunal considered ZNKS's submissions regarding remorse, his desire to undertake a sex offender program, and his claims about non-refoulement obligations and impediments to removal. However, it found that his claims regarding persecution in Syria were not sufficiently substantiated, particularly in light of evidence that his family members continued to reside there without apparent harm. The Tribunal also noted that ZNKS had not sought evidence from his claimed network of friends and family in Australia. Ultimately, the Tribunal concluded that the evidence did not establish "another reason" to revoke the mandatory visa cancellation. The Tribunal affirmed the decision under review.