ZTGP and Minister for Home Affairs (Migration)

This matter concerned an application by ZTGP for the revocation of a mandatory visa cancellation. The dispute arose from ZTGP's criminal history, which included multiple convictions for violent offences. The Tribunal was tasked with determining whether there was another reason, within the meaning of section 501CA of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth), to revoke the cancellation of ZTGP's visa.

The primary legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the discretion to revoke the visa cancellation was enlivened, and if so, how that discretion should be exercised in light of Direction No. 65. Specifically, the Tribunal had to consider the primary considerations outlined in paragraph 13(2) of Direction No. 65: the protection of the Australian community from criminal or other serious conduct, the best interests of minor children in Australia, and the expectations of the Australian community. The Tribunal also had to assess the "other considerations" under paragraph 14.5 of Direction No. 65.

The Tribunal reasoned that ZTGP's offending behaviour, which involved violent crimes against a vulnerable victim and was witnessed by a child, was at the extreme end of seriousness. This conduct was viewed very seriously under Direction No. 65. While acknowledging ZTGP's difficult childhood, including experiences of abuse and subsequent substance abuse issues, the Tribunal found that ZTGP had not taken opportunities to change his behaviour in the past. The Tribunal considered the impact on ZTGP's Australian wife and stepson, but ultimately determined that revoking the visa cancellation was not in the stepson's best interests. The Tribunal was not satisfied that ZTGP would face significant impediments to establishing himself in New Zealand, despite acknowledging the challenges he would encounter.

Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that the "other considerations" under paragraph 14.5 of Direction No. 65 did not weigh in favour of revoking the cancellation of ZTGP's visa. The application for revocation was therefore refused.