Aakash (Migration)

This matter concerned an appeal by Aakash against the cancellation of his Subclass 500 (Student) visa. The cancellation was based on the ground that he had been convicted of an offence, specifically theft, attempting to obtain property by deception, and making a false report to the police, for which he received a Community Corrections Order. The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (the Tribunal) was required to determine whether the visa should be cancelled, considering its discretionary powers.

The Tribunal was tasked with assessing whether the ground for cancellation under s 116(1)(g) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) existed and, if so, whether to exercise its discretion to cancel the visa. This involved weighing various factors, including the applicant's purpose for being in Australia, his academic progress, his compliance with visa conditions, and the seriousness of his offending. The Tribunal noted that the applicant had not provided any reasons to the Department or the Tribunal as to why his visa should not be cancelled.

In its reasoning, the Tribunal found that the ground for cancellation was established due to the applicant's convictions. While the offences were not considered trivial, demonstrating a propensity towards dishonesty, they were not at the most serious end of such offending. The Tribunal also considered the applicant's academic history, noting that his initial enrolment in a Bachelor of Digital Media was cancelled due to unsatisfactory academic progress, and a subsequent enrolment in a Certificate II was cancelled for non-payment of fees. Although he later completed a Certificate III and commenced a Certificate IV, these were below the level of the degree for which the visa was granted, and the applicant provided no explanation for his academic trajectory. The Tribunal acknowledged the applicant's compliance with his visa conditions as a factor in his favour. However, ultimately, the Tribunal concluded that the applicant had not demonstrated a compelling or urgent need for his visa to be reinstated, and the factors favouring cancellation, including the nature of his convictions and his unfulfilled study purpose, outweighed the countervailing factors.

Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the decision to cancel Aakash's Subclass 500 (Student) visa.