ENGELINA (Migration)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) considered the case of an applicant whose Bridging A (Class WA) visa, subclass 010, was cancelled. The dispute arose after the applicant was convicted of an offence against a law of the Commonwealth. The applicant sought review of the decision to cancel her visa.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the grounds for cancellation under section 116(1)(g) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) and regulation 2.43(1)(oa) of the Migration Regulations 1994 were made out, and if so, whether the discretion to cancel the visa should be exercised. The applicant also raised arguments concerning double jeopardy, low risk of harm to the Australian community, and her contributions to the community.

The Tribunal found that the applicant had indeed been convicted of an offence against a law of the Commonwealth, satisfying the prescribed ground for cancellation under regulation 2.43(1)(oa). As this ground did not mandate cancellation under section 116(3) of the Act, the Tribunal proceeded to consider the exercise of discretion. The Tribunal acknowledged the applicant's submissions regarding hardship, including the argument of double jeopardy, her employment as a marketing officer requiring overseas travel, her community service, and her desire to build a life in Australia with her husband. However, the Tribunal noted that the applicant had been granted a Bridging Visa E, allowing her to remain lawfully in Australia, continue working, and fulfil her obligations. While the travel restrictions associated with the Bridging Visa E prevented her from undertaking overseas travel for work and visiting family, the Tribunal concluded that these factors did not outweigh the grounds for cancellation.

Ultimately, the Tribunal affirmed the decision to cancel the applicant's Bridging A visa.