Chauhan (Migration)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) considered an appeal by Mr. Chauhan against the cancellation of his Skilled (Provisional) (Class VC) visa, Subclass 485 (Temporary Graduate) visa. The dispute arose because a fact or circumstance that was a ground for the visa's grant, namely his membership in a family unit with the primary visa holder, no longer existed, and there was no evidence of reconciliation.

The AAT was required to determine whether the visa should be cancelled, considering the discretion afforded to the Tribunal under section 116 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth). This involved assessing various factors, including the purpose of the visa holder's stay, compliance with visa conditions, and the degree of hardship that might be caused by cancellation.

The Tribunal reasoned that the applicant's Subclass 485 visa was granted to enable him to remain in Australia with his partner, the primary visa applicant. However, as the relationship had ceased, the applicant could no longer fulfil the purpose of his visa. While there was no evidence of non-compliance with visa conditions, the Tribunal found that the hardship claimed by the applicant, such as discrimination, mental health deterioration, and inability to repay a loan, stemmed from the breakdown of his relationship and his divorce, rather than the cancellation of his visa. The Tribunal noted that even if the visa were reinstated, it would expire shortly, and the applicant had not provided satisfactory evidence regarding the loan.

Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the decision to cancel Mr. Chauhan's visa.