Cajegas (Migration)

This matter concerned an appeal by the applicant against the cancellation of their Temporary Activity (Class GG) visa, subclass 408 (Temporary Activity). The dispute arose after the applicant's sponsor, the Christian Community Church Morwell, terminated their employment and withdrew support, leading to the cancellation of the visa under section 116(1)(b) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) for failing to comply with visa condition 8107. The applicant argued that their sponsor had not met their employment obligations and that they intended to lodge a complaint with Fair Work Australia. The applicant also presented evidence of ongoing financial allowance from the sponsor for a period after the stated cessation of employment.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the ground for cancellation under section 116(1)(b) of the Act was made out, and if so, whether the discretion to cancel the visa should be exercised. The Tribunal was required to consider the conflicting allegations regarding the cessation of employment and the sponsor's obligations, as well as the applicant's subsequent employment with another church, City West Church in Brisbane, which intended to sponsor and employ them. The Tribunal also had to assess the potential consequences of cancellation, including the impact on the applicant and their family members, and consider Australia's international obligations.

The Tribunal found that the ground for cancellation under section 116(1)(b) was established, as the applicant had ceased to be employed by the sponsor in relation to which the visa was granted. However, the Tribunal exercised its discretion not to cancel the visa. This decision was based on several factors, including the applicant's demonstrated intention to continue working in Australia with a new sponsor, the integral role they played in the operations of City West Church, and the potentially manifestly unfair consequences of cancellation given the circumstances. The Tribunal also noted that the applicant was not prevented by PIC 4013 from re-applying for a subclass 408 visa.

Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the decision to cancel the applicant's visa. The decision also noted that there was no jurisdiction for other applicants, presumably family members, in this review process.