Bellamy (Migration)

This matter concerned an appeal by Mr Bellamy against the cancellation of his Subclass 444 (Special Category) visa by the Department of Home Affairs. The dispute before the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) was whether the decision to cancel Mr Bellamy's visa should be affirmed.

The Tribunal was required to determine two primary legal issues. First, whether the ground for cancellation under section 116(1)(e)(i) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) was made out, specifically whether Mr Bellamy's presence in Australia was, or might be, a risk to the health, safety, or good order of the Australian community. Second, if the ground for cancellation was established, whether the Minister's discretion to cancel the visa should be exercised, considering all relevant circumstances.

In reaching its decision, the Tribunal applied the principles established in cases such as *Gong v MIBP* and *Tien v MIMA*. The Tribunal found that the ground for cancellation was established, noting that the power to cancel a visa under s 116(1)(e) can arise on the possibility of risk, not requiring certainty. The Tribunal considered the serious criminal charges Mr Bellamy faced under Queensland law, including offences related to child grooming and drug possession, which indicated a risk to the safety of the Australian community. In exercising its discretion, the Tribunal weighed various factors, including Mr Bellamy's relatively short period of residence in Australia, the strong ties he maintained in New Zealand with his partner and family, and the absence of compelling reasons for him to remain in Australia. The Tribunal concluded that these factors did not outweigh the seriousness of the grounds for cancellation.

Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the decision to cancel Mr Bellamy's Subclass 444 visa.