Brookes (Migration)

[2021] AATA 1203

Brookes (Migration) [2021] AATA 1203 (16 March 2021)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

APPLICANT:  Mr Antony Brookes

CASE NUMBER:  2009771

HOME AFFAIRS REFERENCE(S):          BCC2019/6176821

MEMBER:Amanda Mendes Da Costa

DATE:16 March 2021

PLACE OF DECISION:  Melbourne

DECISION:The Tribunal affirms the decision to cancel the applicant’s Subclass 457 (Temporary Work (Skilled)) visa.

Statement made on 16 March 2021 at 1.12pm

CATCHWORDS

MIGRATION – cancellation – Student (Temporary) (Class TU) visa – Subclass 457 (Temporary Work (Skilled)) – applicant ceased employment over 90 days – subsequent employment with another sponsor ceased – violent relationship with partner – major downtown in hospitality industry – visa due to expire – fund-raising and voluntary activities – decision under review affirmed        

LEGISLATION

Migration Act 1958, ss 48, 116
Migration Regulations 1994, Schedule 2 cl 457.223; Schedule 8 Condition 8107

STATEMENT OF DECISION AND REASONS

APPLICATION FOR REVIEW

1. This is an application for review of a decision dated 2 June 2020 made by a delegate of the Minister for Home Affairs to cancel the applicant’s Subclass 457 (Temporary Work (Skilled)) visa under s.116 of the Migration Act 1958 (the Act).

2. The delegate cancelled the visa under s.116(1)(b) on the basis that the applicant had not complied with a condition of his visa. The delegate was not satisfied that the ground for cancelling the visa outweighed the reasons for cancellation. The issue in the present case is whether that ground for cancellation is made out, and if so, whether the visa should be cancelled.

3. The applicant appeared before the Tribunal on 10 December 2020 to give evidence and present arguments. The Tribunal also received oral evidence from Alexandra Weightman, a friend of the applicant.

4. The Tribunal exercised its discretion to hold the hearing by video. The hearing was held during the COVID-19 pandemic.  The Tribunal determined it was reasonable to hold a hearing by video, having regard to the nature of this matter and the individual circumstances of the applicant. The Tribunal has taken into account that the applicant was prepared to participate in a video hearing, that the technology for facilitating the hearing was successfully trialled with the applicant prior to the hearing and the applicant was offered the opportunity to provide the Tribunal with further documentation and submissions following the hearing.

5. The Tribunal also had regard to the Tribunal’s objective of providing a mechanism of review that is fair, just, economical and quick, and the delay to the matter if the hearing was not to be conducted by telephone.  The Tribunal is satisfied that the applicant was given a fair opportunity to give evidence and present arguments.

6. For the following reasons, the Tribunal has concluded that the decision to cancel the applicant’s visa should be affirmed.

   CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE

7. Under s.116 of the Act, the Minister may cancel a visa if he or she is satisfied that certain grounds specified in that provision are made out. Relevantly, to this case, these include the ground set out in s.116(1). If satisfied that the ground for cancellation is made out, the decision maker must proceed to consider whether the visa should be cancelled, having regard to all the relevant circumstances, which may include matters of government policy.

   Does the ground for cancellation exist?

8. The Tribunal notes that the applicant was initially granted a Subclass 457 visa on 12 September 2016 for the purpose of employment as a Café or Restaurant Manager with his then sponsor BA Get Pty Ltd. He ceased employment with that employer on 9 March 2017. A visa may be cancelled under s.116(1)(b) if the Minister is satisfied that the holder did not comply with a condition of their visa. In this instance condition 8107(3)(b) attached to the applicant’s visa. This condition requires that if the visa is, or the last substantive visa held by the applicant was, a Subclass 457 (Temporary Work (Skilled)) visa, that was granted on the basis that the holder met the requirements of subclause 457.223(2) or (4) and if the visa holder ceases employment, the period during which the holder ceases employment must not exceed 90 consecutive days.

9. On 16 October 2017 the applicant’s visa was cancelled pursuant to s.116(1)(b) on the grounds that he had failed to comply with condition 8107(3)(b) attached to his visa, in that he had ceased employment with his sponsor for a period in excess of 90 consecutive days.

10. The applicant lodged an application for review of that decision and on 8 February 2019 the Tribunal (constituted by this Member) granted the application for review and reinstated the applicant’s visa.  At that stage the applicant was living in Sydney and had the likely prospect of employment with another sponsor in that city.

11. The applicant subsequently obtained employment with another sponsor, Queensland Venue Co Ltd.  That employment (located in Queensland) ceased on 6 November 2019 and on 14 May 2020, the Department sent the applicant a Notice of Intention to Consider Cancellation (NOICC) of the visa, on the grounds that he had failed to comply with condition 8107(3)b) attached to his visa, in that he had ceased employment with his sponsor for a period exceeding 90 consecutive days.

12. The applicant provided the Department with a written response to the NOICC (dated 15 February 2010) which included the following submissions:

    ·He left his job in Queensland in November 2019 due to being in a violent relationship with his partner, which severely affected the applicant’s work performance.

    ·He had to leave Brisbane because he was unable to find a new job and also for his personal safety.

    ·He was forced to stay with a friend because he had no income after leaving his job.

    ·He had been applying constantly for work however, because of the major downtown in the hospitality industry since March 2020, this had become nearly impossible.

    ·His visa was due to expire in September 2020 and after speaking to a migration agent, he was at a loss to know what to do about this given his impression that if his Subclass 457 visa was in hospitality, he was unable to change industry.

    ·He had been living in Australia for nine years and would love to be a permanent resident. He had contributed to the Australian community and was part of many social groups before the Corona virus lockdowns occurred).

    ·If his visa was cancelled, he would have to return to a life in the United Kingdom that he did not know and in a country that had suffered more than 30,000 deaths in the first round of the Corona virus pandemic and the deaths hadn’t stopped.

    ·His life, ‘family’ and partner were in Australia and he did not know how he could restart his life in an unfamiliar and dangerous environment.

    Applicant’s oral evidence

13. The applicant told the Tribunal that following the Tribunal’s previous decision he had relocated to Brisbane in July 2019 to commence employment with his sponsor Queensland Venue Co Ltd.  The applicant was employed in the position of venue manager at the Wickham Hotel, located in Fortitude Valley, Brisbane where he was engaged to “turn around” the popularity of the venue and make it a “LGBTQIA safe place”.  He remained in that employment until November 2019.   During his employment the applicant “turned around” the fortunes of the sponsor’s business and within three weeks of him commencing his employment, it had commenced making a profit.

14. During this employment applicant was responsible for managing the Wickham’s venue offering shows, live music and trivia nights aimed at the LGBTQIA community and organising and hosting events for ‘Pride Month’ including Q&A sessions focusing on history of drag, sports and recreation, creative arts, sexual health and issues relevant to the Transsexual and Transgender communities.   The applicant also introduced for a new open floor might for new up and coming artists to show their talent.

15. The applicant also assisted in raising money for the Queensland AIDS Council; participated in organising events for the Little Gay Day and the Pride Fair Day afterparty; and organising his employer to sponsor the Purchase Cup and the post tournament party.

16. The above events were both popular and profitable and in turn increased the patronage and profit of the venue’s bars and restaurants.

17. Whilst he was living in Brisbane, the applicant was involved in an intimate relationship with a partner who became controlling and verbally abusive.  The applicant described this relationship as a “toxic” one in which his former partner played mind games and manipulated him.  This behaviour adversely affected his mental health and the applicant’s ability to cope with the demands of his employment and after discussions with his employer in November 2019 he decided to resign his job and return to Sydney. This coincided with the breakdown in the applicant’s relationship with his partner.  The applicant left the relationship due to his former partner’s abusive behaviour.  The applicant explained to the Tribunal that his friends and social group were in Sydney and he felt isolated, lonely and unsupported in Brisbane.  This was not helped by the controlling and abusive behaviour of his partner.

18. On his return to Sydney in December 2019, he lived with Ms Weightman and commenced looking for employment.  However, despite numerous applications, he was unable to secure further employment and in March 2020 his employment prospects became more difficult with the impact of the Covic-19 pandemic and government restrictions, affecting the hospitality industry.

19. The applicant has curated ‘Candyland’, a party which took place at the Ivy restaurant during the Mardi Gras.  The applicant also assisted in organising events for the Gay Pride Parade in Sydney and featured in the ACON community organisation’s 2020 ‘Thank You Campaign”.

20. The applicant further made an appearance in a television program, and in January 2020 the applicant was shortlisted as one of five finalists as Australia’s ‘Mr Gay Pride Ambassador’ to represent Australia at an international ‘Gay World’ competition to be held in South Africa in April/May 2020.  Due to the Covid-19 pandemic, this event did not take place.

21. As he was unable to claim any government assistance (such as the JobSeeker payment) the applicant was forced to ask for financial assistance from his family in the United Kingdom.

22. The applicant has obtained some casual work including as a drag queen at events and parties, worked for a company, delivering alcohol, hosted a Christmas event for the Bill Crews Foundation and hosted a Balcony Bar Christmas Show.

23. Apart from this occasional work, the applicant has been supported by Ms Weightman (who provided him with rent-free accommodation) until June 2020 and his family in the United Kingdom who have provided him with financial assistance.  He has also used his taxation return and superannuation funds to support himself.  In September 2020 the applicant moved into his own rented accommodation in Sydney.

24. In addition to his paid employment in Sydney, the applicant has engaged in voluntary activities within the LGBTQIA community, including raising money for breast cancer awareness; becoming a member of the Customer Advisory Group at the Sydney Sexual Health Clinic; participating in a cancer study at the Sexual Health Clinic; and raising over $6,500.00 for mental health treatment.

25. The applicant told the Tribunal that if he returned to the United Kingdom, he would be at an increased risk of being infected with Covid-19 – given the current health situation there.  It would also be difficult for him to receive treatment for other medical conditions, given his lack of recent medical history with the National Health Service and the long waiting lists for treatment in the United Kingdom.  The Tribunal notes that in October 2020 he underwent emergency surgery on his neck and requires further scans and follow-up treatment for his neck condition and ‘bulging disks’ in his back.

26. The applicant further explained that if he was uncertain about where he would live if he returned to the United Kingdom as his mother and her partner were elderly and he his relationship with them was not close.  He hadn’t visited the United Kingdom since 2016, he had no working history in the United Kingdom and consequently no right to government benefits as he had not been employed there.

27. The applicant’s plans for the future include a continuation of his voluntary assistance to the LGBTQIA community in Australia.  If his visa is not cancelled, he intends to curate a monthly educational discussion panel in Sydney (similar to those he created in Brisbane).  He has also been requested to host a Gay pride event in Lismore, which has been relocated to Uralla, due to COVID-19 restrictions.

28. The applicant has remained a part of the International Gay Rugby competition as a voluntary social media lead.

    Oral evidence Alexandra Weightman

29. Ms Weightman is employed as an international student recruitment manager for a university in Sydney.  She is a close friend of the applicant.  She was in regular with the applicant when he was living in Brisbane and became aware from their conversations that he was involved in a relationship with a controlling and abusive partner and that this had adversely affected his mental health and ability to cope with the demands of his employment.

30. Ms Weightman allowed the applicant to share her home when he returned from Brisbane in December 2019, as he did not have the funds to rent his own premises.  She observed that the applicant was not communicating when her returned from Brisbane and felt that he had failed by leaving his employment with his sponsor.

31. Ms Weightman confirmed that since the applicant had returned to Sydney, he had been involved in numerous fund-raising and voluntary activities in the LGBTQIA community.

    Applicant’s written submissions

32. On 12 June 2020, the applicant provided written submissions to the Tribunal, which included the following:

    ·He is dyslexic which affects his ability to comprehend written material.

    ·During the 90 days immediately following him ceasing employment with his sponsor, he applied for positions within the hospitality industry.  He was approached by the Merivale Group in Sydney.  However, due to the limited amount of sponsorship transfers a company is able to take on per year, they were unable to sponsor the applicant.

    ·Even if he had been offered a position with a company in the hospitality industry, the severe downturn in the industry (due to the Covid-19 restrictions) and probationary period of six months for a management role, he would have been stood down and lost his role.  This would have placed him back in the same situation of having to find work in a non-existent industry.  Now that the industry is able to re-build, there is wok available and more of a chance to continue being part of the skilled work force, that he was part of prior to his move to Brisbane.

    ·Whilst living and working in Brisbane, he was in a situation which ended in his mental health being severely affected.  This was a key factor in his return to Sydney and also a time to build-up the courage and trust again to be part of the social environment.

    ·The delegate used as part of his reason for his decision, the fact that he (the applicant) had been granted a Subclass 457 visa on 12 September 2016 for the purpose of employment as a Restaurant Manager with BA Get Pty Ltd and that he ceased employment with this employer on 9 March 2017 and his visa was subsequently cancelled on 16 October 2017, due to his ceasing employment with an approved sponsor for more than 90 days.  The visa was re-instated by the Tribunal on 11 February 2019.

    ·This was proved wrong as it was his employer and migration agent who had caused this situation.  He questions why this material was included by the delegate in his decision to cancel the visa.

    ·He has always been a good ‘temporary resident’ – abiding by the laws of Australia.  He seeks to be allowed to continue the positive work he does within the hospitality industry and community.  He has also been self-sufficient and not caused any problems.

33. Following the hearing the applicant provided the Tribunal with further material, including:

    ·an email in which he advised that a screw from an earlier surgical procedure on his neck had “come loose” and he was being readmitted to hospital for a further surgical procedure on 5 February 2021;

    ·an email containing an offer of employment for two events in regional New South wales during pride Week in February 2021;

    ·an email confirming a medical procedure for the applicant at Royal prince Alfred Hospital on 5 February 2021; and

    ·character references for the applicant by Alexandra Weightman (dated 28 January 2021) and Dillon Shaw(undated).

34. In her reference Ms Weightman attests to meeting the applicant for the first time in January 2018.  She quickly became close friends with the applicant who looked after her home when she travelled overseas.  Ms Weightman describes the applicant as “my family, my friend, my protector and the only man I let my guard down for”.

35. In the subsequent 16 months after they first met, the applicant and his drag persona “Yazqueen” became one of the most well-respected and sought-after drag queens on the Sydney circuit and resident host at an iconic LGBTQIA+ community.

36. The applicant moved to Brisbane in July 2019 to take up the role of venue Manager at the Wickham Hotel.  The applicant had an immediate effect of the venue – it was busier and more profitable and well-recognised LGBTQIA+ venue.

37. Ms Weightman met the applicant’s partner on one occasion.  Form her discussions with him, she formed the opinion that the partner had a number of unresolved personal issues which made him emotionally unstable.

38. When things did not work out for the applicant in Brisbane he returned to Sydney where Ms Weightman invited him to live with her.  Despite the difficulties he was facing (no home, no income, a relationship breakdown, leaving a job he loved and the risk of losing his visa), the applicant did all he could to make Christmas a happy time for Ms Weightman and himself.

39. The year 2020 was very difficult for the applicant.  Due to the Covid-19 pandemic, the applicant found it difficult to find employment and another sponsor.  It was a testing and emotional time for the friendship between Ms Weightman and the applicant. However, with patience and love, their friendship is now “back on track”.

40. The applicant is now working for a company providing home-delivered alcohol.  He has also rebuilt his professional profile and has moved into his own apartment.

41. The applicant has lately been under stress due to a number of health concerns.  However, Ms Weightman is more concerned about his mental health.  Although the applicant spends much of hi time in helping others, he rarely discusses his own problems.  His drag persona “Yaz” assists him in channelling any depression or negative emotions into making a difference to the lives of others in the LGBTQIA+ community.

42. Ms Weightman describes the applicant as a determined, passionate and hard-working person.  In her opinion, the applicant’s entrepreneurial nature will continue to make a significant contribution to the Australian LGBTQIA+ community. 

43. Mr Dillon is the licensee of the Universal, a bar and nightclub located in Sydney.  In his reference he attests to knowing the applicant for three years in a professional and personal capacity. The applicant has worked at Mr Dillon’s venue on numerous occasions and has also assisted in organising charity events for ACON and Prostate Cancer Awareness.  Mr Dillon describes the applicant as a well-respected and loved member of the LGBTQIA+ community and a reliable and caring friend.

    Findings regarding the grounds for cancellation of the visa

1. The Tribunal is satisfied that the applicant was employed by the sponsor during the period July to November 2019.  The Tribunal accepts the applicant’s evidence that he ceased this employment in November 2019 when the sponsor ceased trading and the applicant has not gained further employment.

2. The Tribunal accepts that the applicant found his position in Brisbane demanding and stressful and that his personal circumstances made it difficult for him to continue in employment with his sponsor.  This was exacerbated by the applicant’s loneliness lack of personal support in Brisbane.  The Tribunal is also satisfied that the applicant made numerous (albeit unsuccessful) attempts to find another sponsor and further employment.

3. However, since the period in which he has not been employed with another standard business sponsor exceeds 90 consecutive days, the Tribunal is satisfied that the applicant has not complied with subclause (3)(b) to Condition 8107 attached to his visa.

4. For these reasons, the Tribunal is satisfied that the ground for cancellation in s.116(1) exists. As that ground does not require mandatory cancellation under s.116(3), the Tribunal must proceed to consider whether the visa should be cancelled.

   Consideration of discretion

5. There are no matters specified in the Act or Regulations that must be considered in the exercise of this discretion. The Tribunal has had regard to the circumstances of this case, including matters raised by the applicant, and matters in the Department’s Procedures Advice Manual (PAM3) ‘General visa cancellation powers’.

   Purpose of the applicant’s travel and stay in Australia

6. The applicant is a national of the United Kingdom.  He initially arrived in Australia in December 2010 on a Working Holiday visa and was subsequently granted student visas which enabled him to complete studies in hospitality, business management and accounting.  He was granted a Subclass 457 (Temporary Work (Skilled)) visa on 12 September 2016 for the purpose working in Australia for his sponsor BA Get Pty Ltd.  He ceased this employment but subsequently gained employment with another sponsor Queensland Venue Co Ltd.  This employment has ceased, and the applicant has not been employed by Queensland Venue Co Ltd or another sponsor for a period in excess of 90 consecutive days.

7. The Tribunal further notes that the applicant’s Subclass 457 visa would, but for the cancellation, have ceased on 12 September 2020 in any case.

8. The purpose of granting a temporary work visa is to enable an Australian business to sponsor a skilled worker if it cannot find an appropriately skilled Australian citizen or permanent resident to fill a skilled position listed in the relevant list of occupations  The Subclass 457 visa is a temporary visa of limited duration related to working for a particular sponsor in a skilled occupation.  The Tribunal finds that this purpose is no longer exists as the applicant ceased working for his sponsor in November 2019. 

9. The Tribunal gives significant weight to this consideration in favour of cancellation of the visa.

   Extent of the visa holder’s compliance with visa conditions

10. There are no known instances of non-compliance with visa conditions, apart from the applicant’s instance of non-compliance with condition 8107.

11. The Tribunal gives some weight to this consideration against cancellation of the visa.

    Degree of hardship that may be caused (financial, psychological, emotional or other hardship)

12. The Tribunal accepts that if the applicant’s visa is cancelled and he returns to the United Kingdom, he will suffer a degree of emotional hardship, given that he has invested a great deal of time and effort in establishing his life and career in Australia over the past 10 years.  The Tribunal further accepts that the applicant will also suffer financial hardship if he is required to return to the United Kingdom – both in the cost of relocation and the lack of any employment.  However, the Tribunal has also taken into account that the applicant has received financial assistance from his family in the past 12 months and is likely to continue to receive such assistance if he returns to the United Kingdom.

13. The Tribunal accepts that the applicant has experienced some difficulties in comprehending written material.  However, given the applicant’s studies, qualifications and experience in the hospitality industry in Australia, the Tribunal is satisfied that he will be able to obtain employment in the United Kingdom.

14. The Tribunal accepts that the applicant may be required to depart Australia in order to apply for a Subclass 482 visa.  The Tribunal is satisfied that the applicant will not be prevented by Public Interest Criteria (PIC) 4013 from applying for a temporary work visa once he finds a new employer who is approved as a standard business sponsor and has an approved nomination in relation to the applicant.

15. The Tribunal accepts that if he departs Australia, the applicant will be separated from his friends and lose his connection with the LGBTQIA community in Sydney.  The Tribunal further accepts that if he returns to the United Kingdom, the applicant will be required to register himself with the National Health Service and this make take some time, but the Tribunal considers that as a resident of the United Kingdom he will be entitled to medical treatment from the National Health Service.

16. Balanced against any potential hardship to the applicant that may result from the visa cancellation, is the fact that the applicant came to Australia on a temporary visa which created no expectation of remaining in Australia permanently.

17. The Tribunal gives significant weight to this consideration against cancellation of the visa.

    Circumstances in which the ground of cancellation arose

18. The Tribunal accepts that prior to the cancellation of the applicant’s visa, he was employed as a Café or Restaurant Manager by his sponsor Queensland Venue Co Ltd, which was a standard business sponsor with an approved nomination for the applicant. 

19. The Tribunal finds that the circumstances in which the ground for cancellation arose were due to the applicant resigning from his employment with his sponsor.  However, the Tribunal is satisfied that the applicant’s decision to leave his employment was made in the context of his involvement in an abusive relationship and its effect on his ability perform his duties with his employer; nevertheless, it is in the context of a temporary visa for a specific purpose which has now ceased.

20. The applicant ceased employment at the sponsoring business in November 2019 when it ceased trading.  The Department did not proceed with the visa cancellation until 2 June 2020.  However, given the restrictions imposed as a result of the Covid-19 pandemic, the Tribunal accepts that it was difficult for the applicant to find employment with a new sponsor during the first half of 2020.

21. The Tribunal gives significant weight to this consideration in favour of cancellation of the visa.

    Past and present behaviour of the visa holder towards the Department

22. The Tribunal accepts that the applicant’s behaviour towards the Department and its staff has been cooperative and that he replied to the NOICC in a timely manner.

23. The Tribunal gives some weight to this consideration against cancellation of the visa.

    Whether there would be consequential cancellations under s.140

24. The applicant is single man with no children.  The Tribunal finds that the cancellation of his visa would not result in the consequential cancellation of any dependent visa holders.

25. The Tribunal does not give this consideration any weight, either in favour of or against cancellation of the visa.

    Whether there are mandatory legal consequences, such as whether cancellation of the visa would result in the visa holder being unlawful and liable to detention or whether indefinite detention is possible consequence of cancellation, or whether there are provisions in the Act which prevent the person from making a valid visa application without the Minister’s intervention.

26. If the applicant’s visa is cancelled and unless he is granted another visa, the applicant will be an unlawful non-citizen and may be detained.  There is no suggestion that he will be detained indefinitely because as a United Kingdom citizen he will be able to return to the United Kingdom.  The Tribunal acknowledges that unless the applicant is granted another visa, he may be subject to possible removal from Australia and he may be subject to an exclusion period in relation to some future visa applications.

27. Section 48 of the Act prevents a non-citizen who held a visa that was cancelled under s.116 from applying for any visa not prescribed for the purposes of s.48 while in the migration zone.

28. The Tribunal gives this consideration significant weight against cancellation of the visa.

    Whether any international obligations, including non-refoulement and best interests of the children as a primary consideration, would be breached as a result of the cancellation

29. There is no evidence, and the applicant does not claim, that Australia’s non-refoulement obligations or the best interests of a child would be breached as a result of the cancellation.

30. Accordingly, the Tribunal does not give this consideration any weight, either in favour of or against cancellation of the visa.

    If the visa is a permanent one, whether the visa holder has strong family, business or other ties in Australia

31. As the applicant’s visa is not a permanent one, the Tribunal does not give any weight to this consideration, either in favour of or against cancellation of the visa.

    Any other relevant matters

32. The Tribunal accepts that in addition to his professional activities in the LGBTIQA community the applicant has made a significant voluntary contribution to the health and welfare of that community in Australia.  The Tribunal is further satisfied that if the applicant were to remain in Australia, he would be likely to continue those activities.

33. The Tribunal further accepts that the applicant has the support of Ms Weightman who has been a loyal friend to him and is likely to continue to be so in future.

34. The Tribunal gives these matters significant weight against cancellation of the visa.

35. The Tribunal accepts that the applicant has made a significant contribution to the welfare of the LGBTIQA community in Australia and is likely to continue his activities if he remains in Australia.  The Tribunal has also taken into account the personal problems experienced by the applicant prior to leaving his employment in Queensland and the difficulties he is likely to face in returning to the United Kingdom if his visa is cancelled.  However, the Tribunal considers that these considerations are outweighed by the fact that applicant has not obtained employment with another sponsor since he ceased employment with Queensland Venue Co Ltd on 6 November 2019 and the applicant’s visa would but for the cancellation, have ceased on 12 September 2020.

36. Considering the circumstances as a whole, the Tribunal concludes that the visa should be cancelled.

    DECISION

37. The Tribunal affirms the decision to cancel the applicant’s Subclass 457 (Temporary Work (Skilled)) visa.

    Amanda Mendes Da Costa
    Member