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

This matter concerned an application by ZPBM (the applicant) to review a decision by a delegate of the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs (the respondent) not to revoke the mandatory cancellation of her Class TY subclass 444 Special Category (Temporary) visa. The applicant had failed to pass the character test. The review was heard by the Hon. John Pascoe AC CVO, Deputy President.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether there was "another reason" why the mandatory cancellation of the applicant's visa should be revoked, having regard to Ministerial Direction No. 79. This involved weighing various considerations, including the seriousness of the offending, the risk of reoffending, the protection of the Australian community, the best interests of minor children, community expectations, and the strength, nature, and duration of the applicant's ties to Australia, as well as impediments to removal.

The Tribunal considered the applicant's extensive criminal history, which was largely linked to drug dependency and the funding of her addiction, and acknowledged the serious trauma contributing to her feelings of alienation. Significant weight was given to the applicant's strong ties to Australia, having resided there since the age of three, and her close family relationships, particularly with her mother and siblings, who provided evidence of their commitment to supporting her. The Tribunal also noted the applicant's long-term role as a carer for her father, who has mental health issues, and the adverse impact his mental health condition would have if she were removed. While acknowledging impediments to removal were minimal in terms of language or culture, the Tribunal considered that her mental health might deteriorate and access to treatment could be delayed in New Zealand.

Having weighed all the considerations, the Tribunal found that the correct and preferable decision was to set aside the delegate's decision not to revoke the cancellation. The Tribunal substituted this with a decision to revoke the cancellation of the applicant's visa, finding that she had received a "real shock" and was determined to change her life with the support of her family.