1815860 (Migration)

This matter concerned an application for review of a decision to cancel the applicant's Bridging E (Class WE) visa. The applicant, who was in jail and unrepresented, had not responded to a letter issued under section 359A of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth), which meant he was not entitled to appear before the Tribunal. The ground for cancellation was that the applicant had been convicted of an offence against a law of a State.

The Tribunal was required to determine whether the cancellation decision was correct, having regard to the applicant's circumstances and the relevant legal principles. This involved considering the applicant's history in Australia, including his initial purpose for travel, his subsequent applications for visas, and his reliance on bridging visas. The Tribunal also had to assess the degree of hardship that might be caused by cancellation, the extent of his compliance with visa conditions, and the circumstances that led to the ground for cancellation.

In its reasoning, the Tribunal applied the principles outlined in the Direction, which mandates that primary considerations should generally be given greater weight than secondary considerations, and that information from independent sources should be given greater weight. The Tribunal found that while the applicant had complied with his visa conditions and that some hardship might be caused by cancellation, these factors were outweighed by other considerations. Specifically, the Tribunal was not satisfied that the applicant had a compelling need to remain in Australia. Furthermore, the Tribunal determined that the circumstances leading to the cancellation, namely the applicant's violent behaviour resulting in numerous criminal convictions and the breakdown of his marriage, were not beyond his control.

The Tribunal affirmed the decision to cancel the applicant's Bridging E visa.