Bedi (Migration)

The applicant, Mr Bedi, sought judicial review of a decision to cancel his Temporary Skill Shortage (Class GK) visa (subclass 482). The cancellation was based on his breach of visa condition 8507, which requires a holder of this visa to cease employment for no more than 60 consecutive days. Mr Bedi had ceased employment with his approved sponsor and, although he commenced new employment, his new employer's sponsorship application was initially refused.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (the Tribunal) had erred in law by approving the sponsorship of Mr Bedi's new employer on review, and consequently, whether the decision to cancel his visa should be set aside. The court was required to consider the weight the Tribunal gave to various factors in exercising its discretion regarding visa cancellation, including the applicant's circumstances, departmental guidelines, the purpose of the visa, the extent of compliance with visa conditions, and the degree of hardship that may be caused by cancellation.

The court noted that the Tribunal had considered the applicant's submission that he believed he was under an approved sponsorship when he commenced new employment, and that he had transferred to the new company within the 60-day period. However, it was also acknowledged that at the time of the original delegate's decision, he was not employed by an approved sponsor and had exceeded the 60-day stipulation. Crucially, the Tribunal had given significant weight to the fact that Mr Bedi was now the subject of an approved sponsorship with his new employer, and that this employer had experienced enhanced profits since his arrival, despite the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. The Tribunal also considered the hardship Mr Bedi would face in terms of his professional ambitions and his significant contribution to his new employer's business.

The Tribunal's decision to approve the sponsorship of the new employer was given maximum weight against cancellation. Consequently, the court found that the Tribunal had properly considered the relevant factors and exercised its discretion appropriately. The decision under review was therefore set aside.