2438907 (Migration) - [2025] ARTA 1863

2438907 (MIGRATION) [2025] ARTA 1863 (14 JANUARY 2025)

DECISION AND

REASONS FOR DECISION

Respondent: Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs
Tribunal Number: 2438907
Tribunal:Senior Member- Margie Bourke
Place:Melbourne
Date:14 January 2025
Decision:The Tribunal affirms the decision to cancel the applicant’s Subclass 417 (Working Holiday) visa.

Statement made on 14 January 2025 at 4:27pm

CATCHWORDS
MIGRATION – cancellation – Working Holiday (Temporary) (Class TZ) visa – Subclass 417 – applicant has not provided correct information – applicant has been convicted of an offence – importing drugs – applicant does not have any current sponsorship – mental health – ground for cancellation in s.116(1)(g) exists – no compelling need for the applicant to travel to or remain in Australia – decision under review affirmed

LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958, ss 116, 359, 376
Migration Regulations 1994, r 2.43, Schedule 2

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 417 (Working Holiday) visa under s.116 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (the Act).
The delegate cancelled the visa under s.116(1)(g) on the basis that a prescribed ground for cancelling a visa applies to the applicant, namely that the applicant has been convicted of an offence against the law of the Commonwealth, a State or Territory, and in the circumstances the delegate considered the applicant’s visa should be cancelled. 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 Tribunal had regard to its objectives to provide an independent mechanism of review that is fair and just, and that ensures that reviews are resolved quickly, with little formality and expense, that allows proper consideration of matters before the Tribunal, and that is accessible and responsive to the diverse needs of parties to the proceedings. The Tribunal had regard to its objectives to improve the transparency and quality of decision-making and promoting trust and confidence in the Tribunal. The Tribunal had regard to the fact the applicant resided in Western Australia, and the review was constituted to a member in the Melbourne registry. The Tribunal considered in all the circumstances that it was appropriate for the hearing to be conducted by video connection, and the applicant was invited to attend the hearing by video.
The applicant appeared before the Tribunal by video on 6 January 2025 to give evidence and present arguments.
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

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 be, 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.

Does the ground for cancellation exist?

s.116(1)(g) - prescribed ground

A visa may be cancelled under s.116(1)(g) if the Minister is satisfied that 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 Regulations. In the present case, the ground in reg. 2.43(oa) is relevant. If a visa may be cancelled under s.116(1)(g), prescribed circumstances may also exist in which a visa is not to be, or must be, cancelled: s.116(2) and (3). There are currently no prescribed circumstances that apply.
For the purposes of s.116(1)(g), the grounds prescribed in s.116(1)(g) include:

reg 2.43(1)(oa), which 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 the 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));

In the Department’s decision record dated 15 October 2024, the delegate records that at [Court 1] on [date March] 2024 the applicant was convicted of two counts of import or export a substance that is a border controlled drug or plant (Criminal Code Act 1995 Cth) and was fined $300 with an order for destruction on both counts.
In the applicant’s submission addressed to the Australian Government Department of Home Affairs dated 15 October 2024 and in his written statements to the tribunal and in his oral evidence, the applicant submits that he was convicted of the two offences of import or export a substance. [information deleted] . The Tribunal accepts the applicant’s submission to the Department and his evidence that he was convicted of the offences.
The Tribunal has considered the applicant’s evidence that he did have the alleged substances in his possession as charged and convicted, although he submits the exact amount is not correct. The applicant has not provided any documentary evidence that the amounts recorded in the alleged Department’s decision record, are not correct. The delegate records on page 5 of the Department’s decision record that the applicant was subject to a baggage search upon his arrival in Australia, and the officers discovered the following [illicit substances on the applicant].
In the applicant’s statutory declaration dated 22 November 2024 provided to the Tribunal the applicant states he did not purposefully bring controlled substances into the country and brought the [substance] for personal medication purposes only.
In the oral evidence in the hearing, the applicant stated that he was convicted in the [Court 1] on [date March] 2024, the day after he arrived in Australia. The applicant stated he was represented by the duty lawyer. The applicant stated that he was convicted of an offence against the law of the Commonwealth, or a State or territory.
The Tribunal is satisfied based on the oral and written evidence before it, that the applicant arrived in Australia as the holder of a 12 month temporary visa, namely a subclass 417 working holiday visa.
The Tribunal is satisfied that the subclass 417 working holiday visa, if it had not been cancelled, would have remained in effect until [date March] 2025.
The Tribunal is satisfied based on the evidence before it that the prescribed ground set out in this reg 2.43(oa) exists. The Tribunal is satisfied that the applicant’s visa may be cancelled under s.116(1)(g).
For these reasons, the Tribunal is satisfied that the ground for cancellation in s.116(1)(g) exists. 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.
Nondisclosure certificate
The Department issued a nondisclosure certificate dated 21 October 2024 pursuant to s. 376 of the Act in relation to documents on the Department’s file. A copy of the certificate was provided to the applicant prior to the hearing.
In the hearing the Tribunal advised the applicant that the Tribunal assessed the certificate is valid, as it was signed, dated recorded the reason why the disclosure of the material would be contrary to the public interest, and properly engaged s.376 of the Act. The certificate stated that the document would disclose lawful methods for preventing, detecting and investigating breaches or invasions of the law that would or be likely to prejudice the effectiveness of those methods.
The Tribunal discussed with the applicant that the information contained in the document to which the certificate applied was relevant to the review, but that the information to which the certificate applied that was relevant to the review was also contained in the Department’s decision record, and therefore was information which was available to the applicant, and which the applicant had provided to the Tribunal. The applicant had provided a copy of the Department’s decision record to the Tribunal. The Tribunal discussed with the applicant that the information to which the certificate applied and that was relevant to the review was therefore known to the applicant, and had been provided by the applicant to the Tribunal. Therefore, the Tribunal was not required to put this information to the applicant pursuant to s.359A of the Act. The Tribunal discussed with the applicant that there was no lack of procedural fairness in not providing a copy of the document, or disclosing the gist of the information pursuant to that process.
The Tribunal advised the applicant that the information to which the certificate applied, was information that was known to the applicant and recorded on an assessment sheet relevant to the consideration of the cancellation of the applicant’s visa. The information included the applicant’s convictions that occurred at [Court 1] on [date March] 2024, and the contact details that the applicant had provided to the Department. The Tribunal advised the applicant that he had provided this information in his statements and submissions and evidence to the Tribunal.
Consideration of the notice of intention to consider cancellation of the applicant’s visa
Based on the written and oral evidence of the applicant, which is consistent with the information on the Department file and in the Department’s decision record, the Notice of Intention to Consider Cancellation under s.116 of the Migration Act 1958 was never received by the applicant. The Tribunal is satisfied that the email address the applicant had provided to the Department was not accessible in Australia and only accessible in [Country 1]. The Tribunal is satisfied based on the evidence of the applicant, that the Department was unable to send an email to the applicant in Australia at the email address he had provided at the time of application. The Tribunal is satisfied the applicant had provided a hostel address [to] the Department as his proposed residential address. The Tribunal is satisfied that the applicant resided at this address for only a couple of weeks after his arrival in March 2024, and did not update his residential address, postal address or contact details with the Department.
The Tribunal accepts the evidence of the applicant that he did not read the information attached to the grant of the visa setting out his responsibilities to maintain and update his contact details with the Department whilst the holder of the visa. The Tribunal is satisfied that the applicant was apprehended at the airport upon his arrival on [date March] 2024 and attended the [Court 1] the following day on [date March] 2024. The Tribunal accepts the evidence of the applicant that the circumstances of his arrival, and apprehension were distressing. The Tribunal accepts the evidence of the applicant that when he left the [Court], he was not advised of any ongoing obligation to update the Department with his contact details.
The Tribunal is satisfied that the Department served the Notice of Intention to Consider Cancellation of the applicant’s visa to the applicant’s provided residential and postal address, sent by registered post on 11 July 2024. The Tribunal is satisfied that the notice was returned to the Department marked ‘return to sender’. The Tribunal is satisfied that the Department was unable to serve the Notice by email, as the applicant had not provided the Department with an email address which was accessible to an address in Australia. The Tribunal is satisfied that the applicant did not receive the Notice as he was not residing at the address to which the Notice was sent, as the applicant had not updated with the Department his current residential or postal address or email address. The Tribunal is satisfied that the Department fulfilled its notification obligations, by providing the Notice addressed to the applicant at the contact details the applicant had provided to the Department, and that were available to the Department at the time of issuing the Notice.
The Tribunal is satisfied that the applicant departed Australia in September, and provided different contact details on his return to Australia on his incoming passenger card. The applicant was contacted by the Department on his new email contact address on 9 October 2024, and the applicant provided his current contact details on 11 October 2024. The Department’s decision record was sent to the applicant at the applicant’s new contact details.
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 applicant provided written and oral evidence to the Tribunal and several submissions after the hearing, that are relevant to the consideration of the discretion.
The purpose of the applicant’s travel to and stay in Australia, including any compelling need to travel to or remain in Australia: – the Tribunal is satisfied that the applicant came to Australia to work in his field as an [Occupation 1], to hopefully obtain his [licence], to travel and explore Australia with a four-wheel-drive and engage in outdoor activities. The Tribunal accepts the evidence of the applicant that he arrived in Australia in March 2024 and that he could not find work until June, and was employed until the cancellation of his visa on 15 October 2024. The Tribunal is satisfied that the applicant is currently the holder of a bridging visa which has a no work condition.
The Tribunal has considered and accepts the information provided by the applicant in post hearing submissions, including that he completed diplomas in [Country 1] in [a specified field], undertook further training in relation to [specified area] at [Employer 1] in 2022, and that in Australia the applicant has obtained four certificates [in] April and was issued a [card] on 27 March 2024 and was granted his license to perform [certain] work [on] 6 June 2024.
The Tribunal has considered the applicant’s submission that he has had a dream about travelling to Australia for many years, and that he will experience hardship and an impact on his mental health if he is unable to remain in Australia. The Tribunal has also considered that the applicant’s temporary subclass 417 working holiday visa ceases on [date March] 2025. The Tribunal has assessed that whether the applicant’s visa is cancelled, and he is required to return to [Country 1] in January 2025, or whether the applicant’s visa is not cancelled and he remains in Australia until his visa ceases in March 2025, does not amount to compelling reasons for remaining in Australia for the purposes of maintaining the applicant’s mental health and preventing hardship.
The applicant also gave evidence that he wished to remain in Australia and continue to work as an [Occupation 1], and that his previous employer had indicated his willingness to sponsor him as a skilled employee. The Tribunal has considered the reference of the [Position 1] of the [Company 1] dated 1 November 2024, who indicated that he was considering the applicant for a visa sponsorship to work in Australia as an [occupation]. The applicant stated that at the time this reference was written, his employer was not aware of his conviction.
The Tribunal stated that it would allow the applicant a week to provide a reference from his employer, confirming the company would sponsor the applicant in relation to a future visa, and confirming the company were aware of the applicant’s conviction for importing drugs. After the hearing, the applicant provided an email thread confirming he had disclosed to the [Position 1] of the company his criminal convictions relating to importing drugs when entering Australia. The applicant provided an email in response from the [Position 1] of the applicant’s previous employer in Australia who stated he would support the applicant’s application or sponsorship process providing the applicant met the company’s employment criteria and a vacancy was available when the applicant applied. The Tribunal accepts that the applicant has had a conversation with his previous employer’s [Position 1], and that it is recognised that there would be some support for a sponsorship in the future if there was a vacancy and the applicant met certain employment criteria for the company.
The Tribunal is satisfied that at the time of this decision the applicant does not have any current sponsorship for a future skilled employment visa or training visa in place. The Tribunal is further satisfied that there is no certainty that any future sponsorship would be offered to the applicant.
The Tribunal gives consideration of the purpose of the applicant’s travel to and stay in Australia weight against cancellation of the applicant’s visa. The Tribunal does not consider there is any compelling need for the applicant to travel to or remain in Australia based on the evidence before it.
The extent of the applicant’s compliance with visa conditions: – the evidence before the Tribunal is that the subclass 417 working holiday visa had conditions of a work limitation and study limitation, and the current bridging visa has a no work and no study condition. There is no evidence before the Tribunal that the applicant has not complied with the visa conditions, either attached to the subclass 417 working holiday visa, or the current bridging visa. The Tribunal gives this weight in favour against cancellation of the visa.
The degree of hardship that may be caused to the applicant and any family members, including financial, psychological, emotional or other hardship: – the applicant stated that if he returned to [Country 1] he would be able to obtain work due to his qualifications as an [Occupation 1]. The Tribunal accepts that there would be no financial hardship to the applicant if he was required to depart Australia due to his ability to obtain work in [Country 1]. The applicant stated that he would experience an impact on his mental well-being because he wants to work in Australia and has had a dream about coming to Australia for 15 years. The applicant did not provide any medical report in relation to his mental health, or on the impact the disappointment in losing his dream about coming to Australia would have on his mental health. The Tribunal accepts that the applicant would be disappointed if he was required to depart Australia due to the cancellation of his visa. The Tribunal accepts that there would be some psychological hardship for the applicant if he was unable to fulfil his planned career advancement and his planned activities in outdoor pursuits and in exploring Australia.

The applicant stated there would be no hardship to family members if he was required to depart Australia, except for their knowledge that he had not succeeded in achieving his dream.
The applicant stated that he has a best friend with whom he came to Australia, and he has recently commenced a good relationship with a new girlfriend. He stated that both his best friend and his new girlfriend would experience hardship if he had to depart Australia, as they would be upset. The applicant described this hardship that would be experienced by these people as an emotional or a psychological hardship.
After the hearing the applicant provided statements from himself, his current girlfriend, his best friend and his best friend’s partner, and another friend with whom he shared a house in [a suburb]. The Tribunal accepts that the new relationship between the applicant and his new girlfriend is important to both of them. The Tribunal accepts that the applicant’s new girlfriend came to Australia from [Country 2] in July 2024. The Tribunal accepts that if the applicant’s visa is cancelled and he had to depart Australia this would negatively impact the relationship between himself and his new girlfriend and be emotionally difficult for both of them.
The Tribunal accepts that the applicant came to Australia with his best friend and her partner, with shared aims in relation to advancing their careers and exploring the country. The applicant’s best friend stated that if the applicant had to leave Australia it would be very difficult for her to remain in Australia. The applicant’s best friend stated that if the applicant left she would also leave Australia and ask her partner to live with her. The applicant’s best friend’s partner stated that the presence of the applicant has been integral to their experience in Australia and that he considers the applicant part of their primary support system and they may feel compelled to return to [Country 1] once their visas expire (rather than apply for further visas).
The Tribunal has considered the applicant’s best friend, her partner and the applicant’s current girlfriend have expressed their concern of the impact it would have on them if the applicant was required to depart Australia. The Tribunal notes that if the applicant’s visa is not cancelled, it will expire in March 2025, and the applicant has not provided evidence of any certainty in relation to his prospects for a future visas or a sponsorship for a future visas. The impact that the applicant’s departure from Australia may have on his best friend, her partner and his girlfriend may occur whether the applicant’s visa is cancelled or not, as the applicant may not have a visa to remain in Australia after [date March] 2025. For this reason the Tribunal gives the degree of hardship that may be caused if the applicant’s visa is cancelled to the applicant ‘s best friend, her partner and his current girlfriend significantly less weight than if the applicant was currently the holder of a permanent visa, or had definitive prospects for a further visa or sponsorship for a further visa.
The Tribunal has considered the statement from the applicant’s friend with whom he shared a house; this a friend declares that the applicant is an integral part of their life in Australia, and that the applicant’s presence in Australia is invaluable to them as a person and to the community. The Tribunal accepts that this person is a friend of the applicant, and may miss the friendship and experiences shared with the applicant if the applicant’s visa is cancelled. The Tribunal’s assessment is that this person would not experience any actual hardship if the applicant was required to depart Australia.
The Tribunal gives consideration of the psychological or emotional hardship that the applicant, and others would experience, weight in favour against cancellation of the visa.
The circumstances in which the ground of cancellation arose: – the Tribunal is satisfied that the applicant was apprehended as an international arrival and charged with importing or exporting a substance that is a border controlled drug or plant. The Tribunal is satisfied that the Department were told by the border control prosecution who brought the offences against the applicant that the illicit substances found in the applicant’s baggage search included [various substances]. The applicant states that the [substances] were in plastic in pockets in his clothing, and the claimed grams were ‘rounded up’ from residue found in the plastic. The applicant claims he was not aware of the plastic containers or wrappers in the pockets of his clothing. The Tribunal is satisfied that the applicant had both [substances] and [another substance] in his baggage that was found in the search at the airport. The Tribunal is satisfied based on the evidence of the applicant that in his luggage there were containers that contained [various substances], and that he was bringing these substances into Australia. The Tribunal is satisfied that the applicant was found guilty and convicted of importing the substances.
In his written and oral evidence the applicant stated that he had a responsible employment record, including drug screenings because of the high risk nature of the work. The applicant stated that he had no criminal history in [Country 1]. The evidence of the applicant is also that he had become involved in a party culture in [Country 1], which involved the illicit drug use.
The applicant claims that he purchased the CBD oil over-the-counter in pharmacies in [Country 1] for its medicinal properties. After the hearing the applicant provided evidence of the ability to obtain [the substance] online through a specific provider in [Country 1]. The statement from the applicant’s best friend’s partner, is someone who is employed [in] a hospital emergency department. This witness states that [the substance] is a legally available product in [Country 1], and is recognised as an alternative medicine to treat conditions of chronic pain and epilepsy, and that the applicant has relied on it to alleviate pain associated with [an] injury. The applicant stated he had [an injury] when he was aged [age], 15 years ago, and used the [substance] as pain relief for the ongoing difficulty in his [body part]. The applicant also stated that since being in Australia he had started going to a gym, and had built up the muscles around his [body part] so he no longer needed the pain relief.
The applicant provided a statutory declaration to the Tribunal declaring that he did not purposefully bring controlled substances into the country and there was no conscious intention to possess the items of [multiple substances]. The applicant stated in the statutory declaration that he was unaware of the illegality of the [substance] that he brought for personal medication purposes only. The Tribunal discussed with the applicant how serious it was to bring illicit substances into another country. The Tribunal discussed with the applicant that it seemed almost implausible that he would not check whether he had plastic containers or wrappers containing cocaine or ketamine before international travel. The Tribunal discussed with the applicant that it seemed almost implausible that he would not check whether crystallised [substance] was legal, or a substance that had to be declared when entering another country.
The applicant stated he was now aware that in Australia [the substance] can only be obtained by prescription. The Tribunal discussed with the applicant whether he wished to provide any medical evidence or reports to confirm that he was using the CBD oil for pain relief the purposes. The Tribunal stated it would allow the applicant a period of seven days to provide any further evidence, including any medical reports or medical evidence.
After the hearing, the applicant provided a request to [a government agency], [a] Hospital, for a copy of his medical records, and an email confirming the request for the records. The Tribunal does not require the medical records to establish either the injury or the operation. The Tribunal is satisfied based on the evidence of the applicant that he [had an injury] as a teenager and was hospitalised due to the injury. The applicant also provided a copy of an order form dated 6 July 2021 for [a] pain relief massager, as evidence that he had sought alternative forms of pain relief for the ongoing [pain]. There is no medical report provided in relation to the pain the applicant has experienced as a result of the [injury]. There is no medical report provided setting out the extent of the ongoing chronic pain the applicant claims he experienced and led to his use of the [substance]. The Tribunal notes that the applicant gave oral evidence that by attending the gym and building up his muscle strength he has alleviated the pain [and] the need for pain relief.
The Tribunal is satisfied that the applicant did injure his [body part], many years ago, and has had ongoing pain issues for several years. The Tribunal is satisfied based on the evidence of the applicant and evidence provided by the applicant that he had used the [substance] for pain relief, and had used [various substances] as party drugs. The Tribunal is satisfied that the circumstances in which the applicant brought the drugs when arriving in Australia via the international airport in his luggage was either inadvertent or for personal use.
The Tribunal gives consideration of the circumstances in which the ground for cancellation arose weight in favour of cancellation of the visa.
The past and present behaviour of the visa holder towards the Department: – the applicant gave evidence that he had not declared the substances on his incoming passenger card when he arrived in Australia on [date March] 2024. The applicant stated he had not really read the incoming passenger card. The applicant stated that previously when he has flown internationally, he has never had anything to declare, and has always ticked ‘no’. The applicant stated that he did not consider the [substance] was an illegal substance. The applicant stated that the failure to declare the [substance] on the incoming passenger card was a massive misjudgment. The applicant stated he was not aware that he had either [various substances] in his luggage. The Tribunal is satisfied that the applicant has not provided correct information on his incoming passenger card on [date March] 2024. The Tribunal is satisfied the applicant did not provide updated contact details with the Department, however the Tribunal also accepts that upon receipt of the request for current contact details on 9 October 2024, the applicant responded immediately with correct current contact details. The Tribunal gives its assessment of the past and present behaviour of the visa holder towards the Department weight in favour of cancellation of the visa.
Consequential cancellations: – the Tribunal is satisfied that there is no person whose visa will be consequentially cancelled pursuant to s.140 of the Act, upon the cancellation of the applicant’s visa. The Tribunal gives this consideration neutral weight neither in favour for nor against cancellation of the applicant’s visa.
International obligation considerations: – the Tribunal is satisfied that there is no child that will be impacted by the cancellation of the applicant’s visa. The Tribunal is satisfied that it does not need to consider the best interests or welfare considerations in relation to any child. The cancellation of the applicant’s visa will not impact Australia’s obligations as a signatory to the Convention on the Rights of the Child.
The applicant does not claim that he would suffer persecution, or potentially fear harm if he returns to his home country. The Tribunal is satisfied that the cancellation of the applicant’s visa will not breach Australia’s non-refoulement obligations under the Refugees Convention, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, or the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.
The Tribunal gives the consideration of Australia’s international obligations neutral weight neither in favour nor against cancellation of the visa.
Mandatory legal consequences: – the Tribunal is satisfied that the cancellation of the applicant’s visa would result in the applicant becoming an unlawful noncitizen, and potentially liable to be detained, or removed from Australia. The applicant is a citizen of [Country 1], and could return to that country. The Tribunal is satisfied that s.48 of the Act and Public Interest Criterion 4013 would apply, and would restrict the visas the applicant would be entitled to apply for, and the timeframe in which the applicant could make applications. The Tribunal notes that the applicant has given evidence of hope that he could apply for a sponsored skilled visa or training visa, and has discussed this with his previous employer, if his visa is not cancelled. The Tribunal gives consideration of the mandatory legal consequences, weight in favour against cancellation of the visa.
Other relevant matters: –the Tribunal accepts the applicant has recently formed a new relationship with a [Country 2] citizen woman. The Tribunal accepts the applicant’s evidence that this relationship would not withstand the applicant being required to depart Australia. The Tribunal accepts that this would cause emotional hardship to both the applicant and his girlfriend. The Tribunal gives consideration of other relevant matters weight in favour against cancellation of the visa.
Conclusion
The Tribunal has considered all the circumstances and matters outlined above , and gives the most weight to the circumstances in which the ground for the cancellation arose. Overall the Tribunal is satisfied based on its assessment of all the circumstances, that the applicant’s visa should be cancelled.
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 417 (Working Holiday) visa.

Date(s) of hearing: 6 January 2025
Representative for the Applicant: N/A