1930124 (Migration)

This matter concerned an application for review of a decision to cancel the applicant's Bridging C (Class WC) visa. The applicant, who was not represented by a migration agent, appeared before the Tribunal to present his case. The core of the dispute revolved around whether the applicant's presence in Australia posed a risk to the Australian community, a ground for visa cancellation under section 116(1)(e)(i) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth).

The Tribunal was required to determine if the ground for cancellation existed and, if so, whether the applicant's Bridging C visa should be cancelled in the exercise of the Minister's discretion. Specifically, the Tribunal had to assess whether the applicant's criminal conduct, for which he had pleaded guilty and was awaiting sentencing on appeal, constituted a risk to the health, safety, or good order of the Australian community. The Tribunal also considered the applicant's personal circumstances, including his reliance on his sister for financial support and his stated intention to return to Nepal, despite having lodged a protection visa application.

The Tribunal reasoned that the applicant's guilty plea to violent offences directed at multiple individuals was sufficient to satisfy the ground for cancellation under section 116(1)(e)(i), even though the applicant had no prior criminal history and was experiencing personal difficulties at the time of the offending. The Tribunal applied the principles from *Gong v MIBP* [2016] FCCA 561, noting that a risk to the community could arise from the possibility of past events, and from *Tien v MIMA* (1998) 89 FCR 80, interpreting "good order of the Australian community" as encompassing activities that impact public order or the administration of law. The Tribunal concluded that the sentencing outcome was not determinative of the cancellation ground and that the applicant's criminal conduct, regardless of its out-of-character nature, demonstrated a risk to the community. In exercising its discretion, the Tribunal considered the applicant's circumstances but found that the seriousness of the offending outweighed these factors.

The Tribunal affirmed the decision to cancel the applicant's Subclass 030 (Bridging C) visa.