2020
The AAT had to decide whether to revoke the mandatory cancellation of a child visa after the applicant reoffended a second time.
The AAT had to decide whether there was a good reason to grant the applicant a bridging visa. He was awaiting review of a protection visa application and had strong ties to his young Australian family.
The AAT had to decide whether there was another reason to revoke a mandatory decision cancelling the applicant’s visa. He committed a serious crime but also had strong family ties to Australia.
The AAT had to decide whether there was another reason to revoke a mandatory decision cancelling the applicant’s visa. He has a long criminal history but also strong family ties to Australia.
The AAT had to decide whether there was a reason to revoke the mandatory cancellation of an applicant’s visa.
The AAT affirmed a decision not to revoke the mandatory cancellation of the applicant’s visa on character grounds.
In this decision, the AAT found the applicant could be granted a safe haven enterprise visa on the basis that the applicant would be at risk of harm and did not present a danger to the Australian community.
2019
The applicant applied to the AAT to review the mandatory cancellation of his visa by the Department of Home Affairs. His spouse visa was cancelled on the grounds that he did not pass the character test due to his criminal record.
The Tribunal decided that the positive factors in the applicant’s favor outweighed the negative factors and set aside the decision.
The AAT set aside the decision to cancel the applicant’s visa on character grounds. The applicant, who had numerous convictions, had strong ties to the Australian community, including indigenous heritage, and had shown signs of significant rehabilitation.
2018
The Department of Home Affairs cancelled the applicant's Refugee visa because he did not pass the character test due to his substantial criminal record. The applicant was sentenced to more than three years in prison in total. The AAT affirmed the decision.
The Department of Home Affairs decided not to revoke the cancellation of the applicant's permanent visa. The applicant arrived in Australia at the age of two and his visa was cancelled after the Department decided he did not pass the character test due to his substantial criminal record of approximately 180 convictions. The Tribunal affirmed the decision.
The Department of Home Affairs refused the applicant's skilled visa on the basis that he did not pass the character test due to a conviction of culpable homicide in South Africa. The Tribunal set aside the decision.
The applicant’s Employer nomination visa was refused by a delegate of the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection as he did not pass the 'character test' due to an indecent assault offence. The Tribunal set aside the decision and in substitution decided the applicant should not be refused the visa.
The applicant’s visa was cancelled due to a finding he did not pass the ‘character test’. This decision was based on the finding that he had a “substantial criminal record” after several driving offences, assault convictions and two public order convictions. The Tribunal substituted the decision exercising the discretion not to cancel the visa.
The applicant’s visa was cancelled by a delegate of the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection as he did not pass the 'character test' due to his substantial criminal record. The Tribunal set aside the decision and substituted that the decision to cancel the visa be revoked.
The applicant was refused a visa by a delegate of the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection and the Tribunal set aside the decision and substituted a decision that the applicant passed the ‘character test’.