Direction No. 99 — character considerations

Topic Ministerial Direction 🇦🇺 Verified: 2026-05

Overview

Direction No. 99 is the Ministerial Direction under s 499 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) that governs the exercise of the character discretion under ss 501, 501A, 501B, and 501CA. Decision-makers at the Department and the ART must consider Direction No. 99 when deciding whether to refuse or cancel a visa on character grounds, or whether to revoke a mandatory cancellation. The Direction sets out primary considerations and other considerations that must be weighed, and specifies the weight to be given to each category.

Direction No. 99 replaced Direction No. 90 in December 2021. It made significant changes to the balancing framework, most notably by strengthening the weight given to community expectations and the protection of the Australian community against persons convicted of serious offences.

The Direction is a legislative instrument made by the Minister and binds delegates at the Department and the ART. It does not bind the Minister personally when exercising a personal power under ss 501, 501A, 501B, or 501J.

Legal basis

Migration Act 1958, s 499 — the Minister may give written directions to a person or body having functions or powers under the Act
Direction No. 99 — Visa refusal and cancellation under section 501 and revocation of a mandatory cancellation of a visa under section 501CA (effective December 2021)
Section 501(2) / 501(1) — the discretion to refuse or cancel
Section 501CA — the revocation process

How it works

Structure of Direction No. 99

Direction No. 99 requires the decision-maker to:

Consider the primary considerations and give them the specified weight
Consider the other considerations (as relevant)
Balance all relevant considerations in making the overall decision

The Direction specifies that the primary considerations generally outweigh other considerations, and that where the primary considerations point strongly against the person, they will ordinarily outweigh even compelling personal circumstances.

Primary considerations

The primary considerations are:

Protection of the Australian community from criminal or other serious conduct: assessed by reference to the nature, severity and recency of the conduct; pattern of behaviour; the likelihood of recidivism; harm to victims
Whether the conduct engaged, or would engage, Australia's international non-refoulement obligations: assessed by considering the risk of harm to the person if removed
The best interests of minor children in Australia: assessed by reference to the impact of the decision on children who are Australian citizens, permanent residents, or who have lived most of their life in Australia
Expectations of the Australian community: the community expects non-citizens who engage in serious criminal conduct to be refused or cancelled

Other considerations

Other considerations that may be relevant (and are weighed against the primary considerations) include:

Strength, nature, and duration of ties to Australia (family, employment, community)
The impact on the person's family members in Australia
The person's health (physical and mental)
The extent to which Australia has contributed to the circumstances of the case
The likelihood of the person accessing rehabilitation programs
The severity of the criminal conduct
Whether the person has paid their debt to society

Application in revocation decisions

In revocation decisions under s 501CA, the Direction requires the decision-maker to assess whether there is "another reason" to revoke the cancellation, applying the same balancing framework. The "another reason" ground is assessed through the lens of the primary and other considerations. A very high risk to the community will ordinarily outweigh even compelling personal circumstances.

Weight given to the primary considerations

Direction No. 99 provides specific guidance on how much weight to give to each primary consideration. Notably, for persons who have been sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 12 months or more (or convicted of a sexually based offence involving a child), there is a strong presumption in favour of refusing or not revoking, which can only be displaced by very compelling circumstances.