Chairesa (Migration)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal reviewed a decision by the Department of Home Affairs to cancel the applicant's Bridging A visa. The applicant, an Indonesian national, had previously been granted a Temporary Skill Shortage (subclass 482) visa sponsored by Eunoia Enterprise Pty Ltd, and later a Bridging A visa associated with a Skilled Employer Regional (subclass 494) visa application, also sponsored by Eunoia. Following the revocation of Eunoia's sponsorship, the applicant withdrew her subclass 494 visa application and was granted a Bridging A visa in association with a Partner visa application. The Department subsequently issued a Notice of Intention to Consider Cancellation (NOICC) regarding this Bridging A visa, leading to its cancellation.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the Department's decision to cancel the applicant's Bridging A visa was justified under section 109 of the Migration Act 1958. This required the Tribunal to determine if the cancellation power arose, specifically considering whether the Bridging A visa grant was based, wholly or partly, on incorrect information provided in a previous visa application, and whether the Minister had issued a valid notice under section 107 of the Act detailing the alleged non-compliance. The Tribunal also had to consider the applicant's response to the NOICC and whether, having regard to all circumstances, the visa should be cancelled.

The Tribunal reasoned that while the applicant had provided incorrect information in her subclass 482 visa application regarding her intentions to work temporarily in Australia, this incorrect information did not influence the grant of the Bridging A visa that was subsequently cancelled. The Tribunal noted that the grant of a Bridging A visa is typically based on the lodgement of a valid application for a substantive visa. Furthermore, the Tribunal found that the Department's cancellation decision was predominantly based on the incorrect information provided for the subclass 482 visa, rather than the Bridging A visa itself. Although non-compliance was established, the Tribunal concluded that, having regard to all relevant circumstances, the visa should not be cancelled.

Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the Department's decision to cancel the applicant's Subclass 010 (Bridging A) visa and substituted a decision not to cancel it.