2101699 (Migration)
[2021] AATA 1233
•24 February 2021
2101699 (Migration) [2021] AATA 1233 (24 February 2021)
DECISION RECORD
DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division
CASE NUMBER: 2101699
MEMBER:Kate Millar
DATE:24 February 2021
PLACE OF DECISION: Adelaide
DECISION:The Tribunal affirms the decision to cancel the applicant’s Subclass 050 (Bridging (General)) visa.
Statement made on 24 February 2021 at 2:05pm
CATCHWORDS
MIGRATION – Cancellation – Bridging E (Subclass 050) visa – tribunal has jurisdiction in this matter – criminal charges and conviction – long period of unlawfulness – being escape from lawful custody – risk of offending – decision under review affirmedLEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958, ss 116, 127, 347, 360
Migration Regulations 1994, r 4.10, Schedule 2CASES
DQO20 v Minister [2020] FCCA 3260
Parata v Minister for Home Affairs [2020] FCCA 1582
Swan v Minister for Home Affairs [2019] FCCA 702Any references appearing in square brackets indicate that information has been omitted from this decision pursuant to section 501K of the Migration Act 1958 and replaced with generic information.
STATEMENT OF DECISION AND REASONS
APPLICATION FOR REVIEW
Mr [A] is a citizen of India. He came to Australia in 2009 as a student, and held student or bridging visas until 28 September 2018, after which he was unlawfully in Australia.
On 23 January 2020 he was granted a Bridging E (Subclass 050) visa pending the outcome of his application for a protection visa. His Bridging E visa was cancelled on 28 February 2020 under s.116 of Migration Act 1958 (the Act) the because he had been charged with offences in Western Australia.
Mr [A] has applied for a review of the decision to cancel his bridging visa. The issues in this matter are whether a ground to cancel Mr [A]’s visa exists, and if so whether his visa should be cancelled.
JURISDICTION
There are two issues affecting the Tribunal’s jurisdiction in this matter. The first is the time in which the application was lodged and the second is a previous decision of the Tribunal.
In looking first at the time that the application to the Tribunal must be made, Mr [A]’s visa was cancelled on 28 February 2020.
Under s.347(1)(b) of the Act an application for review of this type of decision must be made within the prescribed period. The prescribed period is set out in r.4.10 of the Migration Regulations 1994 (the Regulations). At the time of the cancellation of his visa, Mr [A] was in [Prison], and was not in immigration detention, and the prescribed period is seven working days after the day on which the notice was received.
The application currently before the Tribunal was lodged on 15 February 2021, nearly a year after the decision was made. It was accompanied by a submission that the notice to cancel Mr [A]’s visa was defective, and because this notice was defective, he had not yet been validly notified of the decision, therefore the time in which he was required to lodge an application for review had not commenced. The representative had sought a valid notification of the decision from the Department, however there is no response to this request recorded in the documents before the Tribunal.
In Parata v Minister for Home Affairs [2020] FCCA 1582, Judge Riethmuller held that s.127(2)(b) of the Act requires a notice to cancel a person’s visa under s.116 of the Act to specify which Part of the Act provided for the review of the particular decisions. This decision is the subject of an appeal to the Federal Court, however a decision has not been handed down as at the date of this decision, and the decision of Judge Riethmuller is binding on the Tribunal.
The notice of the decision to cancel Mr [A]’s visa did not specify the Part of the Act under which it could be reviewed, and according to Parata it is not a valid notice. If the time for applying for review has not commenced a valid review application can nevertheless be made.[1] It follows that the time in which an application must be made to the Tribunal has not yet commenced, and the application is within time.
[1] SZOFE v MIAC (2010) 185 FCR 129
The second issue is that an application for review of the same decision was previously made to this Tribunal on 14 October 2020. On 10 November 2020, this Tribunal (differently constituted) found that it had no jurisdiction because the application had not been lodged in the prescribed period. It is apparent that the decision in Parata, which was handed down on 17 June 2020, was not brought to the attention of the Tribunal.
As this Tribunal has formed a different view of whether the prescribed period has commenced in accordance with Parata, and the substantive issues were not addressed in the previous decision, the Tribunal considers it has jurisdiction in this matter. To the extent it is necessary, the Tribunal relies on Bhardwarj.[2]
[2] Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs v Bhardwarj [2002] HCA 11. See also Mora (Migration) [2016] AATA 4198 at [20]
THE HEARING
This matter is a time limited review, with the Tribunal required to make a decision on the review, and notify the applicant of the decision, within the prescribed period (s.367 of the Act) unless the applicant agrees to extend the time. The prescribed period is seven working days after the day on which the application is received (r.4.27 of the Regulations). Two working days are required to give notice of a hearing (s.360A of the Act and r.4.21 of the Regulations).
A hearing of this matter was scheduled on 19 February 2021. The Tribunal attempted to proceed with two different Punjabi interpreters, however neither interpreter was satisfactory. The hearing was resumed on 22 February 2021. Mr [A] was provided time after the hearing on 22 February to provide further documents in support of his application. The time was extended to 23 February as he had not been able to obtain his medical records.
Mr [A] was represented in relation to the review by his registered migration agent.
THE OFFENDING
On [date] December 2019, Mr [A] was charged with armed robbery, giving false details and escaping lawful custody. The armed robbery and giving false detail charges were dismissed for want of prosecution. On 7 September 2020 he was fined $600 with costs of $118.50 for escaping lawful custody.
Mr [A] provided the statement he gave to the Court about escaping lawful custody. In this statement, he says that he thought he was being taken by police in a police vehicle to his residence to obtain his identification documents and did not realise he had been arrested. He maintains he was not read his rights or informed he was in lawful custody. He was not handcuffed, unlike his friend. He acknowledges police in their statement said he had been read his rights but denies this occurred. On realising he had been taken to the police station, he panicked and ran off. He states he has a longstanding fear of police due to his experiences in India, which are the basis of his claim for protection.
On [date] January 2020, Mr [A] was charged with assault occasioning actual bodily harm, being armed or pretending to be armed in a way that may cause fear and stealing. He was acquitted of these offences on 26 May 2020.
At the hearing, Mr [A] gave evidence that he had also been charged with possession of heroin for personal use and was given a suspended fine.
He referred to failing to attend court in 2017 and 2018 and charges for fighting in 2017 or 2018. He later stated he was not convicted of the fighting offence and that the failure to attend court relates to hearings at the Tribunal and the Federal Circuit Court about the refusal of his application for a Subclass 187 visa.
IS THERE A GROUND TO CANCEL MR [A]’S VISA?
Section 116(1)(g) of the Act allows the Minister to cancel a visa if she or he is satisfied that a prescribed ground for cancelling the visa applies to the visa holders.
Regulation 2.43(p)(ii) provides a prescribed ground for cancellation in the case of a holder of a Subclass 050 (Bridging (General)) visa where the Minister is satisfied that the holder has been charged with an offence against a law of the Commonwealth, a State, a Territory or another country.
Mr [A] was charged with aggravated armed robbery, giving false personal details to police, and escaping lawful custody on [date] December 2019.
Mr [A] concedes he was charged with these offences, and a ground to cancel his visa under s.116(1)(g) exists.
SHOULD HIS VISA BE CANCELLED?
Under s.499 of the Act, the Minister may give written directions about the performance of the functions or exercise of powers under the Act. Where written directions are given under s.499 of the Act, the Tribunal is required to take into account the Directions.[3]
[3] Uelese v Minister for Immigration & Border Protection[2015] HCA 15
In considering whether a Bridging E visa should be cancelled on the basis of the prescribed grounds in r.2.43(1)(p) or (q) the Minister has given written directions under s.499 of the Act in Direction No.63, Bridging E visa - Cancellation under section 116(1)(g) – Regulation 2.43(1)(p) or (q) (the Direction).
The principles which provide a framework within which decision makers should approach the task of deciding whether to cancel a Bridging E visa are set out in cl.4.3 of the Direction. These are:
(1) Mandatory detention applies to any non-citizen who arrives and/or remains in Australia and who does not hold a visa that is in effect.
(2) All non-citizens residing in the community are expected to abide by the law. This is particularly relevant where the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection has used his personal non delegable power to grant a non-citizen in immigration detention a visa in the public interest.
(3) The Australian Government has a low tolerance for criminal behaviour by non-citizens who are in the Australian community on a temporary basis, and do not hold a substantive visa. In the case of a non-citizen who, but for the Minister granting them a visa in the public interest, would be subject to mandatory detention, it is a privilege and not a right to be allowed to live in the community while their immigration status is being resolved.
(4) In order to effectively protect the Australian community and to maintain integrity and public confidence in the migration system, the Government has introduced measures that support the education of Bridging E visa holders about community expectations and acceptable behaviour. These measures encourage compliance with reasonable standards of behaviour and support the taking of compliance action, including consideration of visa cancellation, where Bridging E Visa holders do not abide by the law.
(5) Bridging E visa holders who have been found guilty of engaging in criminal behaviour should expect to be denied the privilege of continuing to hold a Bridging E visa while they await the resolution of their immigration status. Similarly, where Bridging E visa holders are charged with the commission of a criminal offence or are otherwise suspected of engaging in criminal behaviour or being of security concern, there is an expectation that such Bridging E visas ought to be cancelled while criminal justice processes or investigations are ongoing.
(6) The person’s individual circumstances, including the seriousness of their actual or alleged behaviour, and any mitigating circumstances are considerations in the context of determining whether a Bridging E visa should be cancelled.
When looking at cancellation because a ground in s.116(1)(g) exists, as in this case, the Direction further specifies that the grounds for cancellation under r.2.43(1)(p)(i) and (1)(p)(ii) are enlivened when a visa holder is convicted of or charged with any offence, irrespective of the seriousness of the offence. However, the seriousness of the offence may be considered as a secondary consideration in the exercise of the discretion in s.116(1).
The Direction also states at cl.5(3) that where a Bridging E visa holder has been charged with an offence or offences and the charges are dismissed, cancellation is not appropriate.
It is submitted in this case that as the charges of aggravated armed robbery and giving false personal details to police were dismissed for want of prosecution this should be disregarded. The time to consider whether the grounds to cancel exist is the time of the cancellation, in this case 28 February 2020. However, Mr [A] has since pleaded guilty to, and was convicted of, escaping lawful custody but the charges of armed robbery and providing false personal details were dismissed. The Tribunal has considered the conviction for escaping lawful custody and any information before it about Mr [A]’s subsequent behaviour up to the time of its decision in deciding whether his visa should be cancelled.
The Direction requires the Tribunal to take into account specified primary and secondary considerations and specifies how these considerations are to be weighed in determining whether the Bridging E visa should be cancelled.
Clause 5.1 of the Direction specifies:
(1) Informed by the Principles in paragraph 4.3, a decision-maker must take into account the primary and secondary considerations in Part two of this Direction, where relevant, in order to determine whether a Bridging E visa holder should have their visa cancelled.
(2) Both primary and secondary considerations may weigh in favour of, or against, cancellation of a Bridging E visa.
(3) The primary considerations should generally be given greater weight than any secondary considerations.
(4) One primary consideration may outweigh the other primary consideration.
(5) In applying the considerations (both primary and secondary), information and evidence from independent and authoritative sources should be generally be given greater weight than information from other sources.
The primary considerations
The primary considerations are:
·The Australian Government’s view that the prescribed grounds for cancellation at r.2.43(1)(p) and (q) should be applied rigorously in that every instance of non-compliance should be considered for cancellation (cl.6(1)(a)); and
·The best interests of any children under the age of 18 in Australia who would be affected by the cancellation (cl.6(1)(b)).
The prescribed ground in cl.6(1)(a) is further explained in cl.6.1 that in weighing the Government’s view that the prescribed ground for cancellation in r.2.43(1)(p) or (q) should be applied rigorously, decision makers should have regard to the principle that the Australian Government has a low tolerance for criminal behaviour, of any nature, by non-citizens who are in the community on a temporary basis and who do not hold a substantive visa. This is particularly the case for non-citizens who, but for the Minister granting them a visa in the public interest, would be subject to mandatory detention while their immigration status is being resolved.
The rigour referred to in this clause is addressed solely to the question of whether to enter into the process of consideration of cancelling the visa and is not saying that the power to cancel should be exercised rigorously.[4] The decision-maker must take the Government’s view as part of the matters to be weighed in the exercise of the discretion, rather than simply follow the view.[5]
[4] ACH15 v MIBP [2015] FCCA 1250 at [28]–[31]
[5] ACH15 v MIBP [2015] FCCA 1250 at [33]
This does not mean once the question of whether to consider cancellation is made, that cl.6(1)(a) has no further work to do. In Swan v Minister for Home Affairs [2019] FCCA 702 (Swan) at [77] Mercuri J states that the primary considerations set out at cl.6.1(a) and (b) of the Direction need to be considered and weighed against each other and with the secondary consideration in deciding whether to cancel a visa. Judge Mercuri also states:
the proper interpretation of clause 6 is that both factors set out in (a) and (b) is that both factors have work to do in the consideration of whether or not to cancel a visa that is in the exercise of the discretion. Clause 6.1(a) requires the tribunal to have regard of the government’s view of the matters identified.
In this case, Mr [A] did not hold a substantive visa at the time he was granted a Bridging E visa, and the principles require a low tolerance for any criminal behaviour in weighing the Government’s view.
Since then, he has been convicted of escaping lawful custody. The charges of armed robbery and giving false personal details were dismissed for want of prosecution and the Tribunal has not considered these charges further.
The Tribunal finds that the Government’s view that the prescribed grounds are to be applied rigorously and the low tolerance for criminal behaviour, and the expectation in cl.4.3(5) of the Direction that Bridging E visa holders who have been found guilty of engaging in criminal behaviour should expect to be denied the privilege of continuing to hold a Bridging E visa while they await the resolution of their immigration status, result in this primary consideration weighing heavily in favour of cancelling the visa.
The Tribunal spent some time trying to elicit from Mr [A] whether there would be any children under 18 that would be affected by a decision to cancel his visa.
He then identified four cousins who live in Australia and said all of his cousins have children. Two cousins live in Perth and the others live in Melbourne and Sydney.
Mr [A] said he was living in the same town [outside] Perth as one of his cousins, who has two children, A and S who are [age]and [age] years old. He used to live in the same town as this family for three years before he moved to another nearby town. He said he last saw these children in person in 2019, and from the time he was arrested he only contacted his family by phone as he was scared of police.
Mr [A] also said he keeps in touch with a friend who has a son.
Mr [A] does not play a parental role in relation to any of these children. There is little information, other than Mr [A] stating he speaks to them on the telephone, about the effect the cancellation of his visa has on these children. He has contact with them by telephone and can continue to do so. The Tribunal accords little weight to the best interests of these children.
Applying the approach in Swan, which is binding on this Tribunal, the primary considerations must also be weighed against each other. As a result, this consideration weighs significantly in favour of cancelling Mr [A]’s visa.
The secondary considerations
The secondary considerations are:
·the impact of a decision to cancel the visa on the family unit;
·the degree of hardship that may be experienced by the visa holder if the visa is cancelled;
·the circumstances in which the ground for cancellation arose;
·the possible consequences of cancellation; and
·any other matter considered relevant.
Impact of a decision to cancel on the family unit
Mr [A] is single and does not have children. He says that the decision will affect his mother and brother in India who are affected by the decision as his mother suffers anxiety and depression and is waiting for him to be granted a visa.
The Tribunal accords little weight to this consideration as the decision regarding the cancellation of his visa will not result in Mr [A] holding a visa, as the Bridging E visa under consideration has ceased to be in effect. If the decision is set aside, at best it accords Mr [A] the opportunity to apply for a further visa.
The degree of hardship that may be experience if the visa is cancelled
The Bridging E visa Mr [A] held has ceased following a decision of the delegate to refuse his protection visa. Setting aside the decision to cancel his visa will not result in him holding a visa, and he will be an unlawful non-citizen.
However, if his visa remains cancelled he will no longer be able to make a valid application for a further Bridging E visa, as item 1305(3)(g) of Schedule 1 to the Regulations requires that the applicant has not previously held a visa that has been cancelled on a ground in r.2.43(1)(p) or (q).
If a decision is made to set aside the cancellation of his visa, he will be able to apply for a further Bridging E visa. He will not meet the requirements for this visa unless he has applied for the intervention of the Minister or has appealed the decision to refuse his protection visa to the Federal Court. At the date of this decision, he has not sought the intervention of the Minister.
The Federal Circuit Court in DQO20 v Minister [2020] FCCA 3260 dismissed his application for review of the decision of this Tribunal (differently constituted). The decision of this Tribunal affirmed the decision to refuse to grant him a protection visa. Mr [A] provided documents to show he has attempted to lodge an appeal to the Federal Court against the decision of the Federal Circuit Court. He is now out of time. He now requires an extension of time to file an application with the Federal Court, as the time to file this application ceased in December 2020.
It was submitted that Mr [A] has already experienced extreme hardship by being denied his freedom for the last 12 months. It was submitted he has a lawful appeal on foot. This is not the case, as while the Tribunal accepts he attempted to lodge an appeal [in] December 2020, his application to the Federal Court for an extension of time is dated [in] February 2021.
The effective question then is the effect on Mr [A] of losing the opportunity to apply for a further visa if he were to remain in detention until any application to the Federal Court is determined or, if he requests the intervention of the Minister, this is determined.
The loss of an opportunity to apply for a further visa is a separate question to the hardship he suffers from being in detention. However, as this is the inevitable result of this visa being cancelled, the Tribunal has considered the hardship Mr [A] experiences in being detained. The Tribunal considers that hardship he has suffered by being in detention up to the date this application was lodged is useful information about predicting the hardship he will suffer in the future.
Mr [A] says he has suffered depression since being in prison. He says he can’t sleep as he is thinking about his past. He stated he suffered depression from 2017 after his application for permanent residency was rejected in 2016.
He states he is unable to obtain treatment for a sore tooth and a problem with the ligaments in his knee while he is in detention as there is a lengthy waiting time to see anyone for these conditions. He says he has been told there is a four month wait to get treatment for his knee.
Mr [A] provided a copy of his medical records from International Health and Medical Services. These records show he receives medication for depression and has sought and been provided with treatment for toothache and for his knee.
Mr [A] was referred to an orthopaedic surgeon for review of a tear in the ligaments of his left knee on [date] November 2020. He has received physiotherapy for his knee, which was also investigated by X-ray and MRI. The medical records show he was provided dental treatment. Mr [A] has been provided with assessment and treatment for his teeth and his knee, although a review by an orthopaedic surgeon appears to be pending.
The Tribunal finds Mr [A] has been provided with treatment and care for his physical conditions while he is in immigration detention.
Mr [A] said that he is not eating or sleeping, is sad and does not talk to others. He said it is hard to survive in detention as he does not have access to medicine. He has nightmares and is concerned about being in immigration detention with people who have committed offences. Mr [A]’s mental health has been treated while he is in immigration detention, and he has received medication for this condition. His admission notes dated 20 March 2020 show he suffered from depression on admission, however the Tribunal accepts in his favour that being in immigration detention may contribute to and exacerbate a pre-existing mental illness.
He said being in detention also affects his mother and he does not want her to die, and that she needs to have hope for him. Mr [A] states he speaks to his mother weekly. While the Tribunal does not doubt his mother is anxious for him and that she may suffer from her own medical conditions, the Tribunal is not satisfied that she has any imminent health concerns or would die if Mr [A]’s visa is not reinstated.
Mr [A] states he thought that, once the charges against him had been resolved, he would be released from detention. This is clearly not the case.
The Tribunal accepts that Mr [A] will suffer hardship if his visa is cancelled, and that specifically he will lose the opportunity to apply for further bridging visas. Setting aside the decision to cancel his visa will not result in his visa being reinstated as it has since ceased.
The circumstances in which the ground for cancellation arose
Mr [A] provided the statement he gave to the court on his plea of guilty to the offence of escaping lawful custody.
In this statement he says he was in a car with a friend which was stopped by police. His friend was informed he was under arrest and was told things like that he had a right to remain silent and to call a lawyer. His friend was handcuffed. He states he was searched and not offered an interpreter.
He states he did not have documents to show his current address and states he told police that if they took him to his house, he would get his driver’s licence. He states at no time was he told he must get in the car, he voluntarily got in the car because he thought the police were taking him home to gather his documents. He did not think he was under arrest and states he was under the impression he could come and go as he pleased. He states he was allowed to sit in an unlocked police car and was not placed in handcuffs.
When he realised they were going to the police station and not to his home he panicked. He states this was because of his experiences in India as he has a longstanding fear of police. He left as he was scared. He states he is aware police said they read him his rights, however he denies this occurred.
At hearing, he said his residence was behind the police station. The address on his visa application is a different address, however the Tribunal accepts the address he gave was behind the police station.
Mr [A] said that after he escaped lawful custody, he saw his name was on the news and it was broadcast that the police were seeking him. He said this made him more scared and he went into hiding until he was arrested. In this time he started using heroin. He escaped and was apprehended approximately one and a half years after the escape. He said he lived in Melbourne for some time but returned to Perth to hire a lawyer and was caught in Perth. At the time he was apprehended he said he had heroin and was charged with personal use of heroin.
Mr [A]’s representative submitted that because Mr [A] was fined a total of $718, in the context of the maximum sentence being a period of imprisonment of three years or a fine of $35,000, this showed that his offending was viewed at the low range of the spectrum.
The Tribunal does not have the benefit of any sentencing remarks before it, and the representative said she was unable to obtain the sentencing remarks in the time allowed for this application. However, Tribunal accepts the sentence reflects that the offending was viewed on the low range of the spectrum.
The possible consequences of the cancellation
The consequence of the cancellation is that Mr [A] will be unable to apply for a further bridging visa and he will remain in immigration detention until he has exhausted his appeal rights or has sought the intervention of the Minister.
As pointed out by his representative, if the matter is remitted by the Federal Court, this would include any period waiting for the Tribunal to decide the matter.
At this stage, this is speculative given that he has not been granted an extension of time by the Federal Court in which to lodge his application.
The possibility that a person will remain in immigration detention pending a resolution of his or her visa status is clearly contemplated by cl.4.3(5).
Any other matters
Mr [A] has four cousins in Australia and said he is in contact with at least two cousins and their families. The induction assessment at [a] Immigration Detention centre states he has cousins in Australia who have distanced themselves from him since his legal issues began.
Mr [A] submits, and the Tribunal accepts that he has a good record behaviour while in prison and immigration detention.
Mr [A] was in Australia unlawfully between [September] 2018 and [January] 2020. It became apparent in the course of the hearing that during this time he was also evading police after escaping lawful custody. He said after escaping lawful custody he realised his mistake and that he should not have left. He said he saw on the news that the police were after him and was scared so he him into hiding. He said he relocated to Melbourne but then returned to Perth to hire a lawyer. It appears he was apprehended rather than presenting himself to police as he said he was “caught” in Perth.
Mr [A]’s decision, once he was aware the police were seeking him, to go into hiding and evade the police for one and a half years does not reflect well on him. Even when he conceded he knew he had done the wrong thing he relocated and did not take the opportunity to present himself to police.
Mr [A] said he feared police due to his experiences in India. The decision of the Tribunal in his protection visa was that, at worst, he suffered insulting and demeaning talk and it was noted that his evidence in that proceeding was that he continued to approach police. This undermined his claim to be fearful of police. Mr [A]’s review to the Federal Circuit Court was dismissed.
The Tribunal put to him that the combination of the nature of his offence, being escape from lawful custody, and the period he was unlawful would not support him being released into the community, as there is a risk he would again be unable to be located. Mr [A] said he has accepted his mistake and now he is getting older he wants to get married and start a family and to be with his mother. He said if he makes any more mistakes his mother will suffer, and he does not want that to happen.
Mr [A] was in Australia unlawfully between September 2018 and January 2020. In addition to being unlawful, he has escaped lawful custody and was fined for this offence. His compliance with visa conditions in the future is questionable given this combination.
CONCLUSION
The primary considerations weigh significantly in favour of cancelling Mr [A]’s visa.
The secondary consideration of impact on the family unit has little application. The hardship that Mr [A] may experience with the cancellations of his visa is the loss of an opportunity to apply for a further bridging visa, and if granted to leave immigration detention, which the Tribunal accepts would improve his mental health. The Tribunal accepts that the consequences of cancelling his visa will be that he remains in immigration detention until his immigration status is resolved. The Tribunal acknowledges the sentence for escape from lawful custody was low in the context of the maximum sentence, however, that he escaped lawful custody and was unlawful for this period does not support setting aside the decision to cancel his visa. The Tribunal consider the secondary considerations weigh slightly in favour of not cancelling Mr [A]’s visa.
Overall, the primary considerations weigh significantly in favour of cancelling his visa. This is not outweighed by the best interests of any children, the impact on Mr [A] or his family, the loss of the opportunity to apply for a further bridging visa or the effect on Mr [A] of being in immigration detention.
As a result, the Tribunal affirms the decision under review.
DECISION
The Tribunal affirms the decision to cancel the applicant’s Subclass 050 (Bridging (General)) visa.
Kate Millar
Senior Member
0
8
0