2304172 (Migration)

[2023] AATA 4512

2304172 (Migration) [2023] AATA 4512 (14 December 2023)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

CASE NUMBER:  2304172

MEMBER:Michael Ison

DATE:14 December 2023

PLACE OF DECISION:  Melbourne

DECISION:The Tribunal affirms the decision to cancel the applicant’s Subclass 030 (Bridging C) visa.

Statement made on 14 December 2023 at 4:52pm

CATCHWORDS
MIGRATION – cancellation – Bridging C (Class WC) visa – Subclass 030 (Bridging C) – granted in conjunction with protection visa application – criminal convictions and fines –driving while unlicenced – obtained fake home country licence through social media – no appearance at hearing or other response – discretion to cancel visa – arrived on visitor visa intending to work – period as unlawful non-citizen – no recent evidence of wife’s health or circumstances provided – financial and emotional hardship – mandatory legal consequences and non-refoulement – Bridging E visa still held – decision under review affirmed

LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss 116(1)(g), 362B
Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth), r 2.43(1)(oa)

Any 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

1. This is an application for review of a decision dated 20 March 2023 made by a delegate of the Minister for Home Affairs to cancel the applicant’s Subclass 030 (Bridging C) visa under s 116 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (the Act).

   Background

2. The applicant in this review is [the applicant], who is a [Age]-year-old Malaysian national. [The applicant] is referred to as the applicant in these reasons for decision.

3. The applicant first arrived in Australia [in] October 2017 as the holder of an Electronic Travel Authority (Class UD) (Subclass 601) visa that was valid to 28 January 2018.

4. On 26 February 2018 the applicant applied for an onshore Protection (Class XA) (Subclass 866) visa.

5. On 9 November 2018 the applicant’s Protection visa was refused by the Department.

6. On 12 November 2018 the applicant applied to the Tribunal to review that visa refusal in Tribunal review 1833174. That application for review has not been finally determined by the Tribunal.

7. After the applicant lodged his onshore Protection visa application he was subsequently granted on 20 March 2018 a Bridging C (Subclass 030) visa. That Bridging C visa had condition 8101 (No Work) from Schedule 8 of the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth) (the Regulations) attached.

8. On 14 August 2020 the applicant applied for a second Bridging C visa and requested that condition 8101 be removed from his Bridging C visa.

9. On 17 August 2020 the applicant was granted a second Bridging C visa, which was valid to 6 January 2021. The applicant’s second Bridging C visa still had condition 8101 (No Work) from Schedule 8 of the Regulations attached.

10. On 6 January 2021 the applicant applied for a third Bridging C visa which was granted on the same day. The applicant’s third Bridging C visa did not have any conditions attached.

11. On 20 March 2023 the applicant’s third Bridging C visa was cancelled under s 116(1)(g) and reg 2.43(1)(oa). It is the cancellation of the applicant’s third Bridging C visa that is the subject of this review.

12. On 3 April 2023 the applicant applied for his first Bridging E (Subclass 050) visa which was granted on 13 April 2023. That Bridging E visa had conditions 8101 (No Work), 8207 (No Study), 8506 (Notify New Address) and 8564 (Must Not Engage In Criminal Conduct) from Schedule 8 of the Regulations attached.

13. On 4 May 2023 the applicant applied for a second Bridging E (Subclass 050) visa which was granted on 19 May 2023. The applicant continues to hold his second bridging E visa at the time of this decision. The applicant’s second Bridging E visa has the same conditions attached as were attached to his first Bridging E visa.

    The primary decision

14. The applicant provided the Tribunal with a copy of the primary decision.

15. The delegate cancelled the visa under s 116(1)(g) and reg 2.43(1)(oa) on the basis that the applicant was convicted of two criminal offences in New South Wales on 7 December 2022. The issue in the present case is whether that ground for cancellation is made out, and if so, whether the visa should be cancelled.

    Tribunal hearing – applicant did not attend

16. The applicant was invited on 24 November 2023 to appear before the Tribunal at 1.30pm on 14 December 2023 in Melbourne to give evidence and present arguments, in person. The applicant did not appear at the scheduled place, time and date.

17. The applicant was sent a text message on 7 December 2023 and 13 December 2023 reminding him of his Tribunal hearing. The Tribunal did not receive any error message in relation to the sending of those reminders.

18. A Tribunal officer rang the applicant’s mobile telephone at 1.31pm on the day of the hearing and the call went to voice mail. The Tribunal officer left a message for the applicant to telephone the Tribunal.

19. The Tribunal officer rang the applicant’s mobile telephone again at 1.35pm and 1.40pm and both calls went to voice mail.

20. The applicant has not returned the Tribunal officer’s call or otherwise contacted the Tribunal at the time of this decision.

21. As the applicant did not attend the Tribunal at the scheduled time, date and place of his hearing and has not contacted the Tribunal or otherwise provided an explanation for not appearing before the Tribunal, the Tribunal has proceeded to make a decision on the applicant’s application for review on the basis of the material before the Tribunal in accordance with s 362B of the Act.

    Pre-hearing submissions

22. The applicant did not provide any submissions to the Tribunal prior to the scheduled time and date of his hearing.

    Tribunal decision

23. The Tribunal has had regard to all of the information in the Tribunal’s file and the Department’s file provided to the Tribunal.

24. The Department’s file included a copy of a Notice of Intention to Consider Cancellation of a visa (NOICC) sent to the applicant on 10 February 2023 and the applicant’s response to the NOICC dated 16 February 2023. In the applicant’s response to the NOICC he provided the following documents to the Department:

    ·The applicant’s response to the NOICC dated 15 February 2023;

    ·Character statement from [Mr A] dated 15 February 2023;

    ·Letter of support from [Ms B], the wife of the applicant, dated 15 February;

    ·Revenue New South Wales Fortnightly payment plan for overdue fines;

    ·Notice of overdue New South Wales Court fines due by 14 February 2023;

    ·Probationary driving licence test appointment for the applicant on 17 February 2023;

    ·[Health services provider] Refugee Health and Wellbeing appointment on 22 November 2023 dated 20 October 2022;

    ·[Health services provider] Imaging appointment for [Ms B] on 29 December 2022 dated 23 November 2022;

    ·[Health services provider] Refugee Health and Wellbeing appointment on 3 January 2023 for [Ms B] dated 23 November 2022;

    ·[Health services provider] Refugee Health and Wellbeing appointment on 7 March 2023 for [Ms B] dated 3 January 2023;

    ·[Regional] General Surgeons invoice to [Ms B] dated 12 January 2022;

    ·New South Wales Health [City 1] Hospital invoice to [Ms B] dated 19 January 2022; and

    ·New South Wales Health [City 1] Hospital invoice to [Ms B] dated 20 January 2022.

25. For the following reasons, the Tribunal has concluded that the decision to cancel the applicant’s visa should be affirmed.

    CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE

26. Under s 116 of the Act, the Minister may cancel a visa if he or she is satisfied that certain grounds specified in that provision are made out. Relevantly, to this case, these include the ground set out in s 116(1)(g) and reg 2.43(1)(oa). If satisfied that the ground for cancellation is made out, the decision maker must proceed to consider whether the visa should be cancelled, having regard to all the relevant circumstances, which may include matters of government policy.

    Does the ground for cancellation exist?

27. Regulation 2.43(1)(oa) provides:

    (1)For the purposes of paragraph 116(1)(g) of the Act (which deals with circumstances in which the Minister may cancel a visa), the grounds prescribed are the following:

    …

    (oa)  in the case of the holder of a temporary visa other than a Subclass 050 Bridging (General)) visa, a Subclass 051 (Bridging (Protection Visa Applicant)) visa or a Subclass 444 (Special Category) visa - that the Minister is satisfied that the holder has been convicted of an offence against a law of the Commonwealth, a State or Territory (whether or not the holder held the visa at the time of the conviction and regardless of the penalty imposed (if any));

28. The applicant in his response to the NOICC did not contest that there is a ground for the cancellation of his visa.

29. The information before the Tribunal is that the applicant was convicted in the Local Court of New South Wales at [City 2] [in] December 2022 of one charge of a never licensed person driving a vehicle on a public road and one charge of possessing a false document (being a falsified Malaysian drivers licence) to influence the exercise of a public duty. The applicant submitted in response to the NOICC that he pleaded guilty to both charges without legal advice or representation and in addition to his convictions was fined $400 for the first charge and $1,000 for the second charge.

30. The applicant provided documents to the Department in his response to the NOICC showing he is paying the fines by instalments.

31. As the applicant has been convicted of two criminal offences in New South Wales [in] December 2022, the Tribunal is satisfied that the ground for cancellation in s 116(1)(g) and reg 2.43(1)(oa) exists. As that ground does not require mandatory cancellation under s 116(3), the Tribunal must proceed to consider whether the visa should be cancelled.

    Consideration of discretion

32. There are no matters specified in the Act or Regulations that must be considered in the exercise of this discretion. The Tribunal has had regard to the circumstances of this case, including matters raised by the applicant, and matters in the Department’s Procedural Instruction ‘General visa cancellation powers’. The Tribunal has considered all of the applicant’s circumstances and uses the headings from the Department’s Procedural Instruction for convenience only.

    The purpose of the applicant’s travel to and stay in Australia, including whether the applicant has a compelling need to or remain in Australia

33. The applicant arrived in Australia [in] October 2017 as the holder of a Subclass 601 Visitor visa but has not departed Australia since. According to the primary decision the applicant stated on his incoming passenger card that he intended to holiday in Australia for five days, but on 28 February 2018 the applicant lodged an application for a Protection visa.

34. The applicant in his response to the NOICC stated:

    Back in my home country, Malaysia, I faced a financial hardship as the salary pay is not commensurate with the work since I did not have any formal education as I am a school dropout. Finding job in Malaysia is very hard for me since I do not have any valuable skills and education. In 2017, I decided to come to Australia in order to change my life and to provide financial support to my family in Malaysia.

35. The applicant’s stated purpose in coming to Australia does not align with the purpose of the visa he was granted and used to enter Australia. This weighs in support of the cancellation of the visa.

36. The applicant has applied for a Protection visa and that application has not been finally determined. This would normally in the Tribunal’s view amount to a compelling need to remain in Australia. However, the applicant’s response to the NOICC and the letter of support from his wife, [Ms B], indicate the applicant is an economic migrant who wishes to stay in Australia to work and earn money to support his wife and his family back home in Malaysia. The applicant has not articulated in this review any reason why Australia may owe him an obligation of protection and based on the reasons he has provided for wanting to stay in Australia it appears he is using the Protection visa application and review process to prolong his stay in Australia. The Tribunal finds that the applicant does not have a compelling reason to stay in Australia. This weighs in support of the cancellation of the applicant’s visa.

37. The Tribunal finds that this consideration weighs in support of the cancellation of the applicant’s visa and the Tribunal gives this consideration great weight.

    The extent of the applicant’s compliance with their visa conditions

38. There is no information before the Tribunal to indicate that the applicant has been found by the Department not to have complied with any of the conditions attached to the applicant’s first and second Bridging C visas or to his two Bridging E visas.

39. It is evident from the applicant’s migration history that he did not depart Australia when his Visitor visa expired. The Tribunal did not have the opportunity to discuss this issue with the applicant and so the Tribunal makes no adverse finding and draws no adverse inferences against the applicant in relation to this information.

40. The Tribunal finds that this consideration weighs against the cancellation of the applicant’s visa and the Tribunal gives this consideration some weight.

    The degree of hardship that cancellation may cause (financial, psychological, emotional or other hardship) to the applicant and any family members

41. The applicant has resided in Australia since 28 October 2017 and in his response to the NOICC wrote (errors in the original):

    Back in my home country, Malaysia, I faced a financial hardship as the salary pay is not commensurate with the work since I did not have any formal education as I am a school dropout. Finding job in Malaysia is very hard for me since I do not have any valuable skills and education. In 2017, I decided to come to Australia in order to change my life and to provide financial support to my family in Malaysia.

    Regarding my offences, I humbly seek for a consideration not to cancel my Visa as my wife is relied on me for financial support since she is unable to work due to her health issue and she also needs emotional support from me as well as she has no work right to find a job. Other than that, I also have family back in Malaysia that needs financial support from me. I deeply felt remorse and regret towards my behavior for showing the fake Malaysian driving license to the officer. I am aware that I should not have made the serious mistake and I did not intent to deceive as I was not thinking straight at that moment. I promise to not repeat the same mistake again in the future. I have already booked for a driving test in [Suburb], Victoria on 17th February 2023. I will become a more vigilant person and to not make any other wrong behavior that will cause problems, I ask for your leniency.

42. The applicant is married to [Ms B] who is also a Malaysian national. In a letter of support for the applicant [Ms B] wrote (errors in the original):

    My name is [Ms B] and I am the wife of [the applicant]. We have been married for 4 years and I have spent the reasonable amount of time with him to understand his character. My husband [the applicant] is a very responsible man who always stands for his family. I have known him to be a trustworthy, caring and devout friend and husband. He is well known for being a good person and respectable husband. As a result, his current offences comes as a complete shock. My husband expresses regret as well as strong desire to fix the underlying personal issues.

    Recently, my husband shown a tenacious and persistent attitude in overcoming this mistake efficiently and successfully and I believe the cancellation of his visa will be detrimental for us as he is the sole’s source of income and support for me. I am in an unwell condition due to my health. I have cyst in my breast that cause me a severe painful episodes in my life. Without my husband to support me emotionally or financially, I would become lose here. Hence, I ask for your lenience.

    I hope my request would be consider.

43. Based on [Ms B]’s statement that she and the applicant have been married for four years it appears to the Tribunal that they married in Australia given the applicant has not departed Australia since arriving in October 2017.

44. As set out in paragraph 24 of these reasons the applicant provided several documents to the Department relating to the medical treatment of his wife, [Ms B]. Those letters and invoices relate to treatment [Ms B] obtained or was booked in for in late 2022 or early 2023. There is no information before the Tribunal updating the Tribunal about [Ms B]’s medical conditions, prognosis or treatment since February 2023.

45. There is no information before the Tribunal updating it about the applicant’s or [Ms B]’s present circumstances. It is not known to the Tribunal whether [Ms B] would remain in Australia or return to Malaysia with the applicant if the applicant’s visa was cancelled and the applicant had to depart Australia.

46. The Tribunal accepts that the applicant has resided in Australia for over six years now and with [Ms B] will have established some ties here such that he and [Ms B] may both suffer some emotional hardship if the applicant’s visa is cancelled.

47. The Tribunal also finds that the applicant, [Ms B] and – based on the applicant’s response to the NOICC quoted above – his family in Malaysia may suffer some financial hardship if the applicant’s visa is cancelled. This hardship is ameliorated by the fact that since arriving in Australia in October 2017 the applicant only had the right to work in Australia when he held his third Bridging C visa between 6 January 2021 and 20 March 2023, a period of just over 26 months of the applicant’s just over 73 month stay in Australia.

48. The Tribunal finds that the cancellation of the applicant’s visa may cause the applicant and [Ms B] some emotional hardship and may cause the applicant, [Ms B] and the applicant’s family in Malaysia some financial hardship.

49. The Tribunal finds that this consideration weighs against the cancellation of the applicant’s visa and in the applicant’s circumstances gives this consideration considerable weight.

    The circumstances in which the ground for cancellation arose. Were there any extenuating circumstances beyond the applicant’s control that led to the ground for cancellation existing? As a general rule, a visa should not be cancelled if the circumstances in which the ground for cancellation arose were beyond the applicant’s control.

50. In his written response to the NOICC the applicant wrote that he obtained a Malaysian driver’s licence through “social media” in 2021 and, despite not sitting any form of test to obtain the licence, the applicant thought it was valid. The applicant then wrote he was stopped in a routine traffic check and asked for his licence by a police officer who found that it was, as the applicant described it, “fake”.

51. The applicant further described the circumstances in which the ground for cancellation of his visa arose in his response to the NOICC as follows (errors in the original):

    I have been using the license for a year and only noticed that the allegedly valid license does not actually exist and not in the Road Transport Department of Malaysia (JPJ) system, although physically, it appears to be valid after being stopped and checked by the patrol officer. The reason for the purchase was to use it for a short period of time until I was able to afford to book in for the Australian driving license because at that time I was working at a rural farm in New South Wales where it was difficult for me to take the driving license in Service NSW due to the far location from the nearest town.

1. The Tribunal finds the applicant’s explanation that he believed the document he purchased using social media that he thought was a valid Malaysian driver’s licence to be implausible. The applicant self-evidently knew that he needed a valid driver’s licence to drive a motor vehicle in Australia. He chose not to obtain a driver’s licence in Australia. Rather than return to Malaysia to obtain a driver’s licence there, he chose to purchase a ‘licence’ through social media in 2021.

2. The applicant was [Age] years of age when he first came to Australia and in the Tribunal’s view would have known of the requirements, at least broadly if not specifically, to obtain a driver’s licence in Malaysia. Publicly available information indicates Malaysia has similar testing requirements and restrictions on driving to most Australian (State based) jurisdictions. The Tribunal finds that it is implausible the applicant would have thought he could obtain a valid Malaysian driver’s licence by just purchasing it online through social media without completing any written or practical test and without having to proceed through the learner and probationary driver processes that precede Malaysia issuing an unrestricted licence.

3. The Tribunal finds that based on all the information before it there were no extenuating circumstances beyond the applicant’s control that led to the ground for cancellation of his visa arising.

4. The Tribunal finds that this consideration supports the cancellation of the applicant’s visa, and the Tribunal gives this consideration great weight.

   The past and present behaviour of the applicant towards the Department (including whether they have been truthful and cooperative)

5. There is no information before the Tribunal to indicate that the applicant has been uncooperative with the Department or with departmental staff. The Tribunal notes that the applicant co-operated with the cancellation process and provided a meaningful response to the NOICC in a timely manner.

6. The Tribunal finds that this consideration weighs against the cancellation of the applicant’s visa and the Tribunal gives this consideration some weight.

   Whether there are persons in Australia whose visas would, or may, be cancelled under s.140 of the Act

7. The information before the Tribunal indicates that there will be no consequential cancellation of any other visa under s 140 of the Act if the applicant’s visa is cancelled.

8. The Tribunal finds that this consideration is neutral and weighs neither against nor in support of the cancellation of the applicant’s visa.

   Whether there are mandatory legal consequences to a cancellation decision such as whether cancellation would result in the applicant becoming an unlawful non-citizen and liable to detention and removal or whether indefinite detention is a possible consequence of cancellation, or whether there are provisions in the Act which prevent the applicant from making a valid visa application without the Minister’s intervention

9. The mandatory legal consequences of the cancellation of the applicant’s visa are that he could become an unlawful non-citizen and may be detained in immigration detention under s 189 of the Act and may be deported from Australia under s 198 of the Act if he does not voluntarily depart. Cancellation of the applicant’s visa will also mean that he is precluded from applying for some visas under s 48 of the Act while he remains in Australia.

10. These consequence have little practical relevance for the applicant because he already holds a Bridging E visa that allows him to remain in the community lawfully. The applicant has also applied for a Protection visa and that application has not been finally determined.

11. In addition, cancellation of the applicant’s visa means he will be affected by Public Interest Criterion 4013 which will limit the applicant’s ability to apply for a temporary visa to return to Australia for a specified period of time.

12. The Tribunal finds that this consideration weighs against the cancellation of the applicant’s visa and the Tribunal gives this consideration some weight.

    Whether Australia has obligations under relevant international agreements including non-refoulement obligations, family unity obligations and the best interests of any children in Australia as a primary consideration, that would be breached as a result of the visa cancellation

13. Australia owes visa applicants a range of obligations under several international agreements that Australia is a signatory to and has ratified including:

    ·The 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees (the Refugees Convention);

    ·The 1967 Protocol to the Refugees Convention (the Protocol);

    ·The 1966 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (the ICCPR);

    ·The 1984 Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (the CAT); and

    ·The 1989 Convention of the Rights of the Child (the CRC).

14. The Tribunal has considered whether the cancellation of the applicant’s visa would breach any obligation Australia owes under these international agreements.

    The Refugees Convention, the Protocol, the ICCPR and the CAT

15. At their broadest these international agreements collectively establish:

    ·The rights of refugees who are defined as persons who owing to a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, are outside their country of nationality and are unable or, owing to such fear, are unwilling to avail themselves of the protection of that country; or who, not having a nationality and being outside the country of their former habitual residence as a result of such events, are unable or, owing to such fear, are unwilling to return to it;

    ·Create an obligation not to expel or return (known as ‘refouler’) a refugee if their life or freedom would be threatened on account of their race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion or they would be in danger of being subjected to torture;

    ·Enshrine the protection of people’s civic and political rights including the right to:

    o   freedom from discrimination;

    o   equality between men and women;

    o   life;

    o   freedom from torture or cruel, inhumane or degrading treatment or punishment;

    o   freedom from slavery;

    o   liberty and security of person;

    o   freedom of movement;

    o   equality before courts and tribunals;

    o   freedom of conscience, thought and religion;

    o   protection of the family unit; and

    oprotection of children.

16. The Tribunal notes that the applicant has applied for a Protection visa, which has not been finally determined and holds a Bridging E visa at the time of this decision. The applicant did not raise any concerns about the possibility of being indefinitely detained in immigration detention in Australia in his response to the NOICC.

17. The Tribunal further notes a decision to deport the applicant from Australia is a separate decision to the decision to cancel the applicant’s visa. It is not clear to the Tribunal, in the absence of information from the applicant to the contrary, that a decision to remove the applicant from Australia would be made prior to his application for a Protection visa being resolved.

18. For these reasons the Tribunal finds that cancellation of the applicant’s visa would not potentially lead to the applicant being removed from Australia in breach of Australia’s non-refoulement and other obligations under the Refugees Convention, the Protocol, the ICCPR and the CAT.

    The CRC

19. The CRC provides, in broad terms, that all decisions made in relation to children must consider the best interests of those children as a primary consideration. The CRC, like the ICCPR, recognises the family unit as the fundamental group in society, protects the rights of children to know and be cared for by their parents and further recognises the right of children to grown up in a family environment in an atmosphere of happiness, love and understanding for the full and harmonious development of their personality.

20. There is no information before the Tribunal to indicate that the applicant or [Ms B] have any children or what [Ms B] would do if the applicant’s visa is cancelled and he had to depart Australia. For these reasons, the Tribunal finds that cancellation of the applicant’s visa would not breach Australia’s obligations under the CRC.

21. The Tribunal finds that this consideration is neutral and weighs neither against nor in support of the cancellation of the applicant’s visa.

    If the applicant holds a permanent visa, whether the applicant has strong family, business or other ties in Australia

22. The applicant’s Bridging C visa is a temporary visa.

23. The Tribunal finds that this consideration is neutral and weighs neither against nor in support of the cancellation of the applicant’s visa.

    Any other relevant matter

24. The Tribunal notes that in the applicant’s response to the NOICC the applicant provided a one-page character reference from [Mr A]. In that reference [Mr A] states that as at February 2023 he had known the applicant for four years and always found him to be “a solid person” who is of “upright character” and had been a great support to [Mr A] throughout their friendship. The Tribunal has taken [Mr A]’s views and experiences of the applicant into account in these reasons for decision.

25. The Tribunal finds that this consideration weighs against the cancellation of the applicant’s visa and the Tribunal gives this consideration modest weight.

    Conclusion

26. The discretionary considerations that weigh in support of the cancellation of the applicant’s Subclass 030 (Bridging C) visa are:

    ·The purpose of the applicant’s travel to and stay in Australia, including whether the applicant has a compelling need to or remain in Australia (great weight); and

    ·            The circumstances in which the ground for cancellation arose (great weight).

27. The discretionary considerations that weigh against the cancellation of the applicant’s Subclass 030 (Bridging C) visa are:

    ·The extent of the applicant’s compliance with their visa conditions (some weight);

    ·The degree of hardship that cancellation may cause (financial, psychological, emotional or other hardship) to the applicant and any family members (considerable weight);

    ·The past and present behaviour of the applicant towards the Department (some weight);

    ·Whether there are mandatory legal consequences to a cancellation decision (some weight); and

    ·Any other relevant matter (modest weight).

28. The discretionary considerations that are neutral and weigh neither in support of nor against the cancellation of the applicant’s Subclass 030 (Bridging C) visa are:

    ·Whether there are persons in Australia whose visas would, or may, be cancelled under s.140 of the Act;

    ·Whether Australia has obligations under relevant international agreements that would be breached as a result of the visa cancellation; and

    ·If the applicant holds a permanent visa, whether the applicant has strong family, business or other ties in Australia.

29. Considering the applicant’s circumstances as a whole, the Tribunal finds that the discretionary considerations that support cancellation of the applicant’s visa outweigh the discretionary considerations that weigh against the cancellation of the applicant’s visa. For this reason the Tribunal concludes that the applicant’s Subclass 030 (Bridging C) visa should be cancelled.

    DECISION

30. The Tribunal affirms the decision to cancel the applicant’s Subclass 030 (Bridging C) visa.

    Michael Ison
    Senior Member