2434123 (MIGRATION) - [2024] ARTA 517

2434123 (MIGRATION) [2024] ARTA 517 (17 DECEMBER 2024)
DECISION AND
REASONS FOR DECISION
Respondent:  Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs
Tribunal Number:  2434123
Tribunal:Kira Raif
Place:Sydney
Date:17 December 2024
Decision:The Tribunal affirms the decision to cancel the applicant’s Subclass 030 (Bridging C) visa.

Statement made on 17 December 2024 at 2:40pm

CATCHWORDS
MIGRATION – Cancellation – Bridging C (Class WC) visa – Subclass 030 – applicant had been convicted of offences – cancellation of the BVC will not result in the applicant having to depart Australia – an outstanding application for judicial review – eligible to seek a Bridging E visa – major depressive disorder with anxious distress – not the subject of a protection finding – decision under review affirmed
LEGISLATION
Administrative Review Tribunal (Consequential and Transitional Provisions No. 1) Act 2024
Migration Act 1958, s 116
Migration Regulations 1994, r 2.43

Any references appearing in square brackets indicate that information has been omitted from this decision pursuant to an order under section 70 of the Administrative Review Tribunal Act 2024 and replaced with generic information.
STATEMENT OF REASONS
Application for review

This is an application for review of a decision 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).
The applicant is a national of Columbia, born in [year]. He was granted the Bridging C visa (BVC) in August 2022. In August 2024 the applicant was issued with the Notice of Intention to Consider Cancellation (NOICC) as the delegate formed the view that there may be grounds for cancelling his visa under s. 116(1)(g). The applicant provided his response to the NOICC and his visa was cancelled. The applicant seeks review of the delegate’s decision.
On 14 October 2024, the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) became the Administrative Review Tribunal (the Tribunal). Under the transitional provisions in the Administrative Review Tribunal (Consequential and Transitional Provisions No. 1) Act 2024 (the Transitional Act), applications for review to the AAT that were not finalised before 14 October 2024 are taken to be an application for review to the Tribunal. The Transitional Act gives the Tribunal the authority to continue and finalise any aspect of the review not already completed by the AAT. This decision and statement of reasons is made by the Tribunal.
The issue in the present case is whether that ground for cancellation is made out, and if so, whether the visa should be cancelled.
The applicant appeared before the Tribunal on 16 December 2024 to give evidence and present arguments. The Tribunal also received oral evidence from the applicant’s mother, sister and niece. The applicant was represented in relation to the review. For the following reasons, the Tribunal has concluded that the decision to cancel the applicant’s visa should be affirmed.
Relevant law
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).
The Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth) (the Regulations) may prescribe circumstances in which a visa is not to, or must, be cancelled: s 116(2) and (3). Further, the Regulations may prescribe matters to which the Minister must, must not, or may, have regard in determining whether a ground for cancellation is made out under s 116(1), (1AA), (1AB) or (1AC), and the weight to be given to such a matter: s 116(1A).
If satisfied that the ground for cancellation is made out, and any circumstances prescribed under s 116(2) or (3) are not applicable, the decision maker must proceed to consider whether the visa should be cancelled. In determining whether the visa should be cancelled, the decision-maker must have regard to all relevant circumstances, which may include matters prescribed under s 116(1A) and other matters of government policy.
A visa may be cancelled under s 116(1)(g) if the Minister or the Tribunal is satisfied a prescribed ground for cancelling the visa applies to the applicant. The prescribed grounds for cancellation are set out in reg 2.43 of the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth) (the Regulations). Regulation 2.43(1)(oa) provides the following:
(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)).
Does the ground for cancellation exist?
The applicant provided to the Tribunal a copy of the primary decision record. It indicates that the Department has been notified by the AFP and NSW Police that the applicant has been convicted of the following offences

16/05/22 Drive with middle range PCA – 1^st offence Fine $1000
Disqualification 6 months

12/04/19
· Dishonestly obtain financial advantage by deception

· Cth – cause delivery, document with false statement, Migration Act

Supervised Intensive Correction order 18 months
Community service work 300 hours
Compensation $100,000

19 months imprisonment to be served by way of ICO

In his response to the NOICC and also in his written submission to the Tribunal of 9 December 2024 the applicant concedes that grounds for cancellation exist. In oral evidence the applicant also agreed that there are grounds for cancelling the visa.
Having regard to the above evidence, the Tribunal finds that the applicant was a holder of a temporary visa other than a Bridging E visa or a Special Category visa. The Tribunal finds that the applicant had been convicted of offences. The Tribunal thus finds that there are grounds for cancelling the applicant’s visa under s 116(1)(g) and reg 2.43(1)(oa). As that ground does not require mandatory cancellation under s 116(3), the Tribunal must proceed to consider whether the power to cancel the visa should be exercised.
Consideration of discretion
Except for visas cancelled on the basis of a breach of visa condition under s 116(1)(b), 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 policy guidelines (‘General visa cancellation powers (s 109, s 116, s 128, s 134B and s 140)’), which refers to matters such as the consequences of cancelling the visa, international obligations and any other relevant matters.
The purpose of the visa holder’s travel to and stay in Australia, whether the visa holder has a compelling need to travel to or remain in Australia
The primary decision record indicates that the applicant first travelled to Australia in 2011 and held a number of Student visas, before being granted a temporary Work visa. His application for a ENS visa was refused. The applicant then sought another substantive visa which was refused in June 2022, with the Tribunal affirming the decision in May 2023. In May 2023 the applicant made an application for judicial review and was granted a BVC on the basis of that application.
In his written submission to the Tribunal the applicant states that his visa was granted on the basis of his application for another substantive visa and he states that due Australia’s non-refoulment obligations and ensuring his claims are correctly assessed, he has a compelling need to remain in Australia to await the outcome of his judicial review.
The Tribunal does not accept the applicant’s claims. While the Tribunal acknowledges that the applicant is able to fulfil the purpose of visa grant as he awaits the outcome of the judicial review, the Tribunal is of the view that the applicant will be able to remain in Australia, and await the outcome of his application for judicial review, whether or not he continues to be a holder of a BVC. Notably, the applicant is eligible to make an application for another bridging visa which would enable him to remain in Australia until his application for judicial review is determined and he has informed the Tribunal that he has made such an application. That is, whether or not the applicant has a compelling need to remain in Australia, he is able to do so irrespective of the outcome of this review.
Further, the Tribunal does not accept the applicant’s claim that Australia’s non-refoulement obligations arise in this case. The fact that the applicant is seeking judicial review suggests that it has been determined that protection obligations do not arise in his case and the applicant is not subject of a protection finding. It may be that the court will form a different view but until and unless the determination is overturned, it cannot be said that Australia’s non-refoulement obligations are engaged.
The applicant states that he has a compelling need to remain in Australia to support his elderly mother. The Tribunal is prepared to accept, for the purpose of this review, that the applicant supports his mother. However, as noted above the Tribunal considers the applicant’s assumption that he would be required to leave Australia if his bridging visa is cancelled to be misguided. As noted above, the applicant has an outstanding application for judicial review and is eligible to seek a bridging visa on the basis of such an application and he has already made the application for a bridging C visa which is yet to be determined. Contrary to the applicant’s claims, the Tribunal finds that the cancellation of the present Bridging visa does not equate to the applicant having to depart Australia.
The applicant refers to his relationship with the young child of his niece, Ms [A] who provided a written statement and gave oral evidence to the Tribunal. The applicant told the Tribunal that he wants to stay in Australia as his family are in Australia and he has a business here and he feels Australia is his home. The applicant states that if he is not allowed to stay in Australia, he would be affected emotionally, financially and otherwise. Putting aside the fact that, on his own evidence, all of the applicant’s family members are holders of bridging visas and do not have substantive visas to remain in Australia as residents, the Tribunal has found the applicant’s claims to be misguided in circumstances where he would not have to depart Australia as a result of the cancellation of his bridging visa.
In the circumstances where the applicant will be able to remain in Australia irrespective of the outcome of the present review on the basis of his application for judicial review, the Tribunal does not consider that the cancellation of the visa would affect any compelling need for the applicant to remain in Australia.
The extent of compliance with visa conditions
There is no evidence of any non-compliance with visa conditions.
The degree of hardship that may be caused to the visa holder and any family members (financial, psychological, emotional or other hardship)
In his response to the NOICC the applicant claims that he needs to remain in Australia, work and support his elderly mother who depends on him financially. The applicant refers to the operation of his own business which enables him to act as a carer to his mother, with the applicant claiming that although he has his immediate family in Australia, there are no other family members who can take on that role. The applicant presented a number of documents to support his claims, including evidence relating to the operation of his business, taxation records, etc.
The Tribunal accepts that the applicant has been operating his business and is prepared to accept that he supports his mother. The applicant states that if his visa is cancelled, he may have to close his business and will not be able to meet his financial commitments. The Tribunal does not accept that evidence, noting that the applicant is eligible to seek a Bridging E visa and, if he is able to establish financial hardship, he may be granted permission to work.
In oral evidence the applicant also claimed that the cancellation of his visa would cause financial, emotional, practical and other hardship. The applicant states that if he has to return to his home country, he would “have to start from scratch”. The applicant referred to emotional and psychological hardship if he has to leave his family behind.
As noted above, while the Tribunal accepts that the applicant prefers to live in Australia, in the Tribunal’s view, a bridging visa is not an appropriate vehicle to enable the applicant to do so. A Bridging A visa Further, and significantly, the cancellation of the present visa does not equate to the applicant having to depart Australia as the Tribunal has formed the view that the applicant would be able to remain in Australia to await the outcome of his application for judicial review.
If the applicant does act as a carer for his mother, he may wish to seek a more appropriate visa, such as a Carer visa, and establish his eligibility for the grant of such a visa. It is not appropriate, in the Tribunal’s view, to rely on a bridging visa to establish long term residence in Australia due to caring arrangements. Similarly, if the applicant wishes to operate a business in Australia, a business visa, rather than a bridging visa, maybe more appropriate. The applicant told the Tribunal he cannot, and does not wish to, return to his home country. The applicant states that he has no support and no family in Columbia. The applicant also refers to his financial commitments in Australia and lack of economic security in Colombia. Whether or not that is the case, the Tribunal notes that the bridging visa is not a substantive visa and it is not designed to enable residence in this country on a long term basis. It is a visa that is granted to the applicant merely to enable him to await the outcome of the application for judicial visa. Even if his application for judicial review is successful, that does not necessarily mean the applicant will be successful in obtaining a substantive visa.
The applicant referred to the hardship that would be caused to his business if his visa is cancelled. However, the Tribunal notes that the applicant has not had permission to work since his visa was cancelled. (The Tribunal warned the applicant against self-incrimination in discussing the issue of his employment since the cancellation of his visa.) The applicant has not presented any evidence of the business being adversely affected following the cancellation of the visa.
The applicant’s mother told the Tribunal that if the applicant’s visa is cancelled, the household ‘would be destroyed’ as he is the one who helps with everything. He manages the finances, takes her to the appointments, communicates with doctors etc and nobody else is able to manage these tasks. The Tribunal notes that neither the applicant nor his mother (nor other family members) hold Australian substantive visas. The applicant’s evidence is all of his family members are seeking other visas but none have been granted substantive, temporary or permanent visas in Australia. Nevertheless, the Tribunal is prepared to accept that the applicant is the primary caregiver for his mother. The cancellation of the applicant’s visa may or may not change that, depending on whether the applicant is granted another visa or is detained as an unlawful non-citizen. If the applicant is granted another visa, the same arrangements can continue. If he is not granted another visa, he may be detained as an unlawful non-citizen or may remain in the community despite being an unlawful non-citizen (as has been the case since September 2024 when his visa was cancelled). Significantly, there is little evidence before the Tribunal to indicate what, if any, other arrangements may be available to the applicant’s mother, should she be detained, noting the presence of multiple other family members in Australia. There is little probative evidence before the Tribunal to support the applicant’s claim that nobody else is available to provide care and support to his mother.
The applicant’s mother told the Tribunal that the family depend on the applicant financially, emotionally and practically and they would all be affected if his visa is cancelled or if he is detained. She also told the Tribunal that her son cannot return to Columbia. The applicant’s sister and niece spoke about their reliance on the applicant in various respects. The Tribunal is prepared to accept that evidence. None of the family members were able to offer a meaningful explanation of how the family will manage their affairs, if the applicant is not granted a substantive visa in the future.
The applicant’s mother and sister spoke about the emotional, practical and financial support the applicant provides. The sister told the Tribunal the applicant takes her to appointments, looks after her daughter and grandson and generally supports the family and he ‘holds the family together’. She states that the family would be ‘severely impacted’. the applicant’s niece also gave oral evidence to the Tribunal, stating that the applicant provides her with emotional and other supports and takes care of her child when she works as her partner is not available.
The Tribunal is prepared to accept that the applicant supports his family in a variety of ways. However, noting that the cancellation of the present visa does not equate to the applicant having to depart Australia, the Tribunal is of the view that at least some of that support will be available to the family irrespective of the outcome of the present review. The applicant will be able to continue to provide emotional support to the family irrespective of what visa he holds and whether he remains in the community or in detention.
In his written submission to the Tribunal the applicant states that he suffers from a major depressive disorder with anxious distress. In his submission to the delegate the applicant refers to his treatment with a psychologist, stating he has been diagnosed with depression. The applicant refers to lack of adequate mental health services in Columbia and the stigma that prevents access to mental health services in Columbia. The applicant presented evidence of his ongoing treatment. He states that the cancellation decision would cause him psychological hardship irrespective of whether he can access mental health services in Columbia. The Tribunal accepts the professional opinion of the health professional, although it is not entirely clear how the cancellation of the BVC would affect the diagnosis or the applicant’s ability to continue with his treatment, given that he would be able to remain in Australia. The applicant claims that his removal from Australia would worsen his medical condition but, as noted elsewhere, the cancellation of the BVC does not equate with the applicant’s removal from Australia. If the applicant remains in the community (as he has been able to do so far despite the cancellation of his visa some three months ago), he will be able to continue treatment. If the applicant is detained, there is no apparent reason why he would not be able to access a health professional in detention.
The Tribunal accepts that if the visa is cancelled and if he is not granted another visa, the applicant may be detained as an unlawful non-citizen. The applicant’s evidence to the Tribunal is that he has made an application for a Bridging visa C and he is also eligible to make an application for a Bridging E visa in the future. The Tribunal acknowledges that there can be no certainty that the applicant would be granted another visa. The Tribunal accepts that the possibility of detention and the uncertainty surrounding it would cause hardship to the applicant and his family. The Tribunal also accepts that there will be significant hardship to the applicant and others if he is detained.

The Tribunal has formed the view that many of the applicant’s claims are based on the assumption that he would be required to leave Australia and that is not the case. Many claims are based on the assumption that the applicant would be detained and while that is a possibility, it is not a certainty. If the applicant is not detained, his present arrangements will continue. If he is detained, the Tribunal accepts that the applicant and his family may experience significant hardship.
The circumstances in which ground of cancellation arose.
The ground for cancellation arises because the applicant held a temporary visa and had been convicted of offences set out above. The applicant described the circumstances leading to the convictions in his response to the NOICC. In relation to the fraud offence, the applicant states that there was poor account management of his business in Columbia and no intention to defraud anyone, although the applicant admits that as the manager of the company, he was responsible and accountable. The applicant states that he pleaded guilty and was required to repay $100,000 to the victims.
The applicant provided in his response to the NOICC the pre-sentencing report which found that there was low risk of reoffending and the applicant claims that he has “learned the lesson” and will not offend again.
In relation to the driving offence, the applicant submits in his response to the NOICC and in his evidence to the Tribunal that the offence was not objectively serious and that it was a genuine mistake as he did not think there would be alcohol in his blood from the previous night. The applicant explained to the Tribunal that he had a drink with friends and left his car in the city and went home by Uber. He drove his car the following day thinking that the alcohol would no longer be in his system. The applicant states that this was a ‘one off’ offence and he has undertaken driving education courses, which is indicative of his commitment that this would not occur again. The applicant provided to the Tribunal evidence of his past course completion. In the Tribunal’s view, the drink-driving offence cannot be classified as trivial, noting the significant harm that could have been caused to other road users.
In his submission to the Tribunal the applicant states that the delegate failed to have regard to his prosocial life in Columbia and Australia and the measures he implemented following the conviction. The applicant submits that he is of good character, has undertaken to repay those impacted by his offending and made payments in restitution even before he was convicted. The applicant refers to character references and the pre-sentencing report. The Tribunal acknowledges that evidence.
The past and present behaviour of the visa holder towards the Department
Nothing adverse is known about the applicant’s behaviour towards the Department
Whether there are persons in Australia whose visas would, or may, be consequentially cancelled under s 140
There are no persons who would be affected by consequential cancellation as there are no secondary criteria relevant to the grant of a BVC.
Whether there are mandatory legal consequences to cancellation, such as: indefinite detention if the person cannot be removed consistently with Australia’s non-refoulement obligations; whether there are provisions in the Act which prevent the person from making a valid visa application without the Minister personally intervening; and whether the person would become an unlawful non-citizen and liable to detention and removal
The applicant is not the subject of a protection finding. While the applicant claims he cannot return to his home country, there is nothing to indicate that non-refoulement obligations arise in this case. The applicant is seeking judicial review but the earlier decision has not been overturned.
If the applicant’s visa is cancelled, and if he does not have another visa, the applicant would be an unlawful non-citizen and would be subject to detention and removal from Australia. In his submission to the Tribunal the applicant states that he would be liable for immediate detention which may be lengthy. There is also no evidence that the applicant cannot be able to be removed to his home country leading to indefinite or even lengthy detention or the uncertainty of a Bridging R visa. Thus, even if the applicant is detained, the Tribunal does not consider he would be subject to indefinite detention. If the applicant is not granted another visa, the detention may be lengthy while he awaits the outcome of judicial review.
The applicant claims that he would be separated from his family if he is detained. (The applicant’s submission that he could be detained for a long period seems to contradict his evidence that he would be required to leave Australia and be separated from his family.) The Tribunal acknowledges that the Migration Act does provide that non-citizens would be detained but the Tribunal is also mindful that since the applicant’s visa was cancelled, no steps have been taken to detain the applicant. The applicant’s submission also fails to recognise the fact that the applicant would be eligible to make an application for another Bridging visa to enable him to remain in Australia lawfully and in the community. The applicant also told the Tribunal that he has made an application for a BVC which is still being processed. In the circumstances, the Tribunal does not accept that the cancellation of the BVC would necessarily lead to the applicant’s lengthy detention.
The cancellation of the visa will also result in the application of s 48, limiting the applicant’s options of applying for another visa onshore, and the applicant would be subject to an exclusion period in relation to future visa applications offshore. The Tribunal is mindful that s. 48 would already apply to the applicant due to the refusal of his substantive visa application.
The applicant has an outstanding application for judicial review. That process is independent and would permit the applicant to remain in Australia until the judicial review is determined. Nevertheless the Tribunal acknowledges that if the applicant is not granted another visa, he is as an unlawful non-citizen and may be subject to detention. The Tribunal accepts that if the applicant were to remain in detention while his judicial review application is being processed, the applicant may potentially remain in detention for a lengthy period.
Whether Australia has obligations under relevant international agreements that would be breached as a result of the visa cancellation. These include the best interests of any children whose interests could be affected by the cancellation; and whether cancellation would lead to removal in breach of Australia’s non-refoulement obligations
The applicant is not subject to a protection finding. He told the Tribunal that he cannot return to his home country has the relevant documents to support his case. As noted above, the Tribunal rejects the applicant’s claim that non-refoulement obligations arise in his case as a finding has been made that the applicant is not owed protection through a different visa process. While the applicant is seeking judicial review of that decision, there is nothing before the Tribunal to indicate that the finding has been overturned.
The applicant refers to a close relationship with a young child of his niece, Ms [A]. The applicant told the Tribunal that he does not have children but has a close relationship with that child and considers him as his own child. He sees the child every day. The applicant and Ms [A] refer to a close bond between the applicant and the child. The applicant’s niece gave oral evidence about the close connection with her son. The Tribunal is prepared to accept that evidence. The applicant submits that the best interests of the child would be adversely affected by the cancellation of the visa. The Tribunal does not accept that is the case because, as noted throughout this decision record, the Tribunal does not accept that the cancellation of the visa will result in the applicant having to depart Australia. Nor will it necessarily lead to the applicant being detained (noting that he is eligible to seek other visas, although detention is a possibility).
The Tribunal is mindful that the child lives with his parents who maintain parental control. [Ms A] was not able to explain to the Tribunal how she would manage the arrangements if the applicant is not ultimately granted an Australian visa and if he is required to leave Australia. Similarly, [Ms A] herself holds a bridging visa and may be required to leave Australia at some time in the future. In the Tribunal’s view, the applicant will be able to maintain an emotional connection to the child whether or not he holds a Bridging C visa and even if he is detained, although the Tribunal accepts that the applicant may not be able to provide the more practical support to the child if he is detained.
Ultimately, the Tribunal is prepared to accept that it may be in the best interests of the child to remain with the applicant. It may be a primary consideration but in the circumstances of this case, the Tribunal has decided to give this consideration less weight. This is, firstly, because the cancellation of the BVC will not result in the applicant having to depart Australia and will not necessarily result in the applicant – who has other visa options - being detained. The Tribunal is of the view that some relationship between the applicant and the child may be maintained. Secondly, because the child and his family do not have Australian substantive visas and there can be no certainty that the child himself will be able to remain in Australia on a longer term basis. Thirdly, the child has the parental care and support of his parents, irrespective of the close relationship he may have with the applicant. In these circumstances, the Tribunal gives this consideration limited weight against the cancellation.
Any other relevant matters.
In response to the NOICC the applicant provided a number of statements in support of his application. The Tribunal has had regard to that evidence and generally accepts the information in these statements. However, in the Tribunal’s view, many of the claims are misguided because it is assumed that the cancellation of the applicant’s BVC would result in him having to depart Australia and that is not the case.
The applicant refers to his family links in Australia. The Tribunal notes that the entire family, including the applicant’s niece and the child, hold Bridging visas and there is no guarantee that they will be able to remain in Australia, in the same way as there can be no guarantee that the applicant himself will be able to remain in Australia. That means that there is a possibility that if the substantive visas are not granted, either the applicant, or the entire family, will be required to leave Australia.
The Tribunal has considered the totality of the applicant’s circumstances. The Tribunal has formed the view that there are grounds for cancelling the visa as the applicant has been convicted of an offence and held a bridging visa.
The Tribunal accepts that considerable hardship may be caused to the applicant and his family if the visa is cancelled and if the applicant is detained. The Tribunal is of the view that the existence of such hardship is mitigated by such circumstances as the applicant’s eligibility of applying for other visas to retain his lawful status, and the fact that no steps have been taken in the past three months to detain the applicant despite his status as an unlawful non-citizen. In the Tribunal’s view, there is a reasonable possibility that the applicant will not be detained despite the obligation to detain the unlawful non-citizens, and therefore the hardships to which he and his family refer may not eventuate. However, if the applicant was detained, or if the applicant is unable to work, the Tribunal accepts that considerable hardship will arise. These circumstances weigh against the cancellation.
The Tribunal has formed the view that the best interests of a minor child require that the applicant’s visa is not cancelled, although for the reasons set out above, the Tribunal has decided to give this consideration limited weight against the cancellation.
The Tribunal has found that Australia’s protection obligations do not arise in this case. The applicant has complied with visa conditions. He is fulfilling the purpose of his stay in Australia. These considerations are neutral.
The applicant claims he has reformed, recognised his past behaviour and that there is a low risk of reoffending. The applicant provided a number of character references and refers to his contribution to Australia. The Tribunal considers that the assessment of the likelihood of reoffending is of only limited application in the context of a cancellation under s. 116 and, particularly, when the cancellation relates to a bridging visa. As the applicant does not have a right to remain in Australia on a temporary or a permanent basis, any assessment of a risk of reoffending is limited and would need to be reconsidered in relation to an application for a substantive visa in the context of the requirements of s. 501.
The Tribunal gives significant weight to the circumstances in which the ground for cancellation arose. The applicant has been convicted of two offences in 2019 with significant penalties imposed. The applicant committed a further drink-driving offence in 2022. In the Tribunal’s view, such offending (particularly the 2019) offending cannot be said to be insignificant or trivial. This factor weighs heavily in favour of the cancellation.
The Tribunal acknowledges that there are factors that weigh against the cancellation. however, having considered the applicant’s circumstances, the Tribunal has decided that the factor that weighs in favour of the cancellation outweighs other factors. Considering the circumstances as a whole, the Tribunal concludes that the visa should be cancelled.
DECISION
The Tribunal affirms the decision to cancel the applicant’s Subclass 030 (Bridging C) visa.
Date(s) of hearing 16 December 2024
Representative for the Applicant: Mr Abbas Soukie