Baljit Singh (Migration)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal considered the case of Baljit Singh, who sought review of the decision to cancel his Subclass 457 (Business (Long Stay)) visa. The applicant had been sponsored by the Trustee for Singh Family Trust to work as a Transport Company Manager, and his visa was subject to Condition 8107, which required him to work only in the nominated occupation. The dispute arose when the Department of Home Affairs formed the view that the applicant was not working in his nominated occupation and had therefore breached his visa conditions.

The Tribunal was required to determine whether the ground for cancellation under section 116(1)(b) of the Migration Act 1958 existed, and if so, whether the applicant's visa should be cancelled. This involved assessing whether the applicant had failed to comply with a condition of his visa, specifically Condition 8107, by not working in the nominated occupation of Transport Company Manager. The Tribunal also had to consider whether to exercise its discretion to cancel the visa, taking into account all relevant circumstances.

In its reasoning, the Tribunal found that the applicant had not fulfilled the purpose of his Subclass 457 visa. Evidence indicated that the applicant's sponsor's approval was cancelled because the sponsor had failed to ensure the applicant worked in the nominated occupation. While the applicant claimed to have performed administrative tasks related to the nominated occupation, the Tribunal was not satisfied that he was genuinely working as a Transport Company Manager. Furthermore, the applicant's subsequent employment as a "trolley pusher" and his explanation for obtaining a Driver's Authorisation were considered. The Tribunal also noted inconsistencies in the applicant's account of his employment dates and his actions after his visa cancellation, which suggested a disregard for immigration law.

Ultimately, the Tribunal affirmed the decision to cancel the applicant's Subclass 457 visa. The Tribunal also stated that it had no jurisdiction with respect to a second named applicant.