1808222 (Migration)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) considered the cancellation of a Bridging E (Class WE) visa held by the applicant, who was in immigration detention. The applicant argued that his bridging visa was cancelled due to defective notification, which meant the prescribed period for lodging an application for review had not commenced. The Tribunal found that there was a reviewable decision and a valid application for review before it.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the Minister, or by extension the Tribunal, had grounds to cancel the applicant's visa under section 116(1)(g) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) and regulation 2.43(1)(p)(ii) of the Migration Regulations 1994. This regulation pertains to non-citizens charged with or convicted of certain criminal offences. The Tribunal also had to consider whether to exercise its discretion to cancel the visa, having regard to Direction No. 63, which outlines specific considerations for the cancellation of Bridging E visas.

The Tribunal was satisfied that the grounds for cancellation existed, as the applicant had been charged with serious criminal offences. In applying Direction No. 63, the Tribunal acknowledged the government's expectation that bridging visas should generally be cancelled when the holder is charged with a criminal offence, reflecting a low tolerance for criminal behaviour by non-citizens. While the applicant claimed to have an Australian wife and child, he provided no corroborating evidence, and this claim was not supported by previous records. Despite the applicant not having been found guilty of the charges, the Tribunal considered them serious enough to warrant visa cancellation.

The Tribunal affirmed the decision to cancel the applicant's Subclass 050 (Bridging (General)) visa.