Chai (Migration)

This matter concerned an appeal by the applicant, Mr Chai, against the cancellation of his Temporary Business Entry (Class UC) visa, Subclass 457 (Temporary Work (Skilled)). The applicant had been granted the visa to work as a Real Estate Representative with an approved sponsor. The sponsor notified the Department that the applicant ceased employment on 28 September 2020, over 60 days prior to the review. The applicant contended that his employment termination was due to the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, leading to financial hardship and difficulties in securing new employment or sponsorship due to strict quarantine rules in China. The decision was reviewed by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicant's Subclass 457 visa should be cancelled, following the cessation of his employment. This involved determining if the ground for cancellation under s 116(1)(b) of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth) was established, and if so, whether the Tribunal should exercise its discretion to cancel the visa, considering the circumstances presented by the applicant. The Tribunal was required to assess the applicant's purpose for being in Australia, his compliance with visa conditions, and the degree of hardship that cancellation might cause.

The Tribunal found that the ground for cancellation under s 116(1)(b) was satisfied because the applicant no longer had a genuine intention to be employed in the nominated position. While acknowledging the impact of COVID-19 and the applicant's financial difficulties, the Tribunal noted that the applicant had not secured new sponsorship since ceasing employment and had failed to find alternative work as a real estate agent despite being granted a Bridging Visa E. The Tribunal also considered the applicant's failure to comply with visa condition 8107, which required him to secure a new sponsor within 60 days of ceasing employment. Despite the applicant's long residence in Australia and lack of prior compliance issues, the Tribunal placed significant weight on the fact that the original purpose for the visa grant no longer existed.

The Tribunal was satisfied that the ground for cancellation existed and, after considering the relevant discretionary factors, affirmed the decision to cancel the applicant's visa.