Amgalanbayar (Migration)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal considered the case of Mr Amgalanbayar, who sought review of the Minister's decision to cancel his Bridging A (Class WA) visa. The cancellation was based on Mr Amgalanbayar's conviction for common assault (domestic violence) and stalking or intimidating with intent to cause fear of physical harm, both domestic violence offences, for which he received an 18-month Community Corrections Order.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the ground for cancellation under section 116(1)(g) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) was established, and if so, whether the discretion to cancel the visa should be exercised. The Tribunal was required to determine if the applicant's convictions constituted a prescribed ground for cancellation under regulation 2.43(1)(p) of the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth). If the ground was established, the Tribunal then had to consider whether to cancel the visa, having regard to all relevant circumstances, including those specified in Direction No. 63.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's convictions for common assault and stalking did establish the prescribed ground for cancellation under section 116(1)(g). Despite the applicant's explanations regarding language barriers and misunderstandings, the Tribunal was not persuaded that his actions were minor or that he had a genuine understanding of the seriousness of his conduct. The Tribunal applied Direction No. 63, which mandates that prescribed grounds for cancellation under regulation 2.43(1)(p) and (q) should be applied rigorously. While the best interests of children and the impact on the family unit were considered, the Tribunal found no compelling need for the applicant to remain in Australia, noting his separation from his wife and his inability to work since the visa cancellation.

Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the decision to cancel Mr Amgalanbayar's Bridging A visa.