Brar (Migration)

The applicant, Mr Brar, sought review of the decision to cancel his Bridging E (Class WE) visa. The cancellation was based on grounds specified in section 116(1)(g) of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth) and regulation 2.43(1)(p)(ii) of the *Migration Regulations 1994* (Cth), arising from criminal charges and convictions. The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) considered whether the grounds for cancellation were established and, if so, whether to exercise its discretion to cancel the visa.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicant's criminal offending constituted a prescribed ground for visa cancellation under the Act and Regulations. If this ground was established, the Tribunal was required to consider whether to affirm the cancellation decision, having regard to the discretion afforded by section 116 of the Act and the requirements of Direction No. 63. This Direction mandates consideration of specific primary and secondary factors when determining whether to cancel a Bridging E visa on these grounds.

The Tribunal found that the applicant had been charged with and convicted of criminal offences, satisfying the prescribed ground for cancellation under regulation 2.43(1)(p)(ii). In exercising its discretion, the Tribunal weighed the primary considerations, including the government's policy of rigorous application of cancellation grounds and the best interests of any children affected, against secondary considerations such as the hardship to the applicant, the circumstances of the offending, and potential consequences of cancellation. While acknowledging the applicant's personal circumstances, including the deaths of his mother and sister, his mental health issues, drug use, and rehabilitation efforts, the Tribunal found insufficient evidence regarding his relationship with his partner and her children.

Ultimately, the Tribunal concluded that, considering all the circumstances, the decision to cancel the applicant's Bridging E visa should be affirmed.