1604439 (Migration)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal considered the cancellation of the applicant's Subclass 457 visa. The dispute arose because the applicant was alleged to have breached a condition of his visa by ceasing employment for more than 90 consecutive days. The applicant contended that he had continued working for his sponsor under a different entity, but the Tribunal was not satisfied with the evidence provided to support this claim.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the ground for cancellation under section 116(1)(b) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) was made out, specifically whether the applicant had complied with the condition requiring him not to cease employment for more than 90 consecutive days. If this ground was established, the Tribunal then had to consider whether to exercise its discretion to cancel the visa, having regard to all relevant circumstances.

The Tribunal found that the applicant had ceased employment with CreZar Pty Ltd on 9 November 2015. Despite the applicant's claims of continued employment with Rasoi Group of Restaurants Pty Ltd and later an offer of employment from Punjabi Brothers Pty Ltd, the Tribunal placed no weight on the unsigned contract and found the purported contract from Punjabi Brothers Pty Ltd to be suspect due to its inconsistent formatting and the applicant's apparent ability to manipulate the company's letterhead. Consequently, the Tribunal was satisfied that the ground for cancellation under section 116(1)(b) was established. In exercising its discretion, the Tribunal considered the applicant's purpose for travel, the reason for the breach, potential hardship, and the applicant's future employment prospects. While acknowledging potential hardship to the applicant and his parents' reliance on his income, the Tribunal concluded that these factors were outweighed by doubts regarding his future employment prospects in Australia and the lack of evidence of an approved nomination.

The Tribunal affirmed the decision to cancel the applicant's Subclass 457 visa. The Tribunal noted it had no jurisdiction concerning the second named applicant.