Coste (Migration)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) considered the case of Coste, who sought review of a decision to cancel her Subclass 457 (Temporary Work (Skilled)) visa. The applicant had initially been granted the visa as a member of the family unit of the primary visa holder, Mr. Matthew Thomas. The dispute arose when the Department of Home Affairs formed the view that the applicant was no longer in a relationship with Mr. Thomas and had ceased to be a member of his family unit, leading to the intention to cancel her visa.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the ground for cancellation under section 116(1)(a) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) was established. This section permits the Minister to cancel a visa if satisfied that the visa was granted based on a fact or circumstance that no longer exists. The Tribunal also had to consider whether, having found a ground for cancellation, it should exercise its discretion to cancel the visa, taking into account all relevant circumstances.

The Tribunal reasoned that the applicant's visa was granted on the basis that she was a dependent member of Mr. Thomas's family unit. Evidence indicated that this relationship had ended around February 2017, meaning the circumstances under which the visa was granted no longer existed. The applicant acknowledged the breakdown of the relationship with Mr. Thomas and confirmed she had lodged a new visa application as a dependent of a new partner, Mr. Sguerso. While the applicant expressed distress regarding the manner of the relationship breakdown and the visa cancellation process, she did not provide evidence of family violence or other factors that would mandate a different outcome. The Tribunal noted that the applicant was awaiting a decision on her new visa application and held a bridging visa with work rights, suggesting she would not become unlawful or face detention if her current visa was cancelled.

Ultimately, the Tribunal affirmed the decision to cancel the applicant's Subclass 457 visa. It concluded that the ground for cancellation under section 116(1)(a) was made out and, after considering the circumstances of the case, exercised its discretion to cancel the visa.