Ganbaatar (Migration)

Ganbaatar (Migration) [2020] AATA 6001 (27 November 2020)
DECISION RECORD
DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division
APPLICANT:  Mr Tsagaanbars Ganbaatar
CASE NUMBER:  2003926
HOME AFFAIRS REFERENCE(S):          CLF2020/8452
MEMBER:Wendy Banfield
DATE:27 November 2020
PLACE OF DECISION:  Sydney
DECISION:The Tribunal affirms the decision to cancel the applicant’s Subclass 500 (Student) visa.

Statement made on 27 November 2020 at 2:29pm
CATCHWORDS
MIGRATION – Cancellation –Student (Temporary) (Class TU) visa – Subclass 500 visa – applicant’s presence in Australia may pose a risk to the health or safety of an individual or individuals – family violence within a continuing marriage – criminal conviction –no compelling need to remain in Australia – decision under review affirmed
LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958, ss 116, 359
CASES
Gong v MIBP [2016] FCCA 561
Tien v MIMA (1998) 89 FCR 80
STATEMENT OF DECISION AND REASONS
APPLICATION FOR REVIEW

This is an application for review of a decision dated 26 February 2020 made by a delegate of the Minister for Home Affairs to cancel the applicant’s Subclass 500 (Student) visa under s.116 of the Migration Act 1958 (the Act).
The delegate cancelled the visa under s.116(1)(e)(ii) on the basis that the applicant had committed acts of family violence and was deemed a risk to the health or safety of individual/s in the family. The Department had relied on an Australian Federal Police charge sheet and statement of facts and the applicant’s admissions in relation to the offences. The issue in the present case is whether that ground for cancellation is made out, and if so, whether the visa should be cancelled.
Background
The applicant is a citizen of Mongolia and is currently 30 years old. He held a Student dependent visa in Australia until it was cancelled on 26 February 2020. The applicant came to Australia with his two children to support his wife while she pursued further study. In February 2020 the applicant was arrested and charged with family violence offences following an incident between him and his spouse. The applicant plead guilty to two offences and was sentenced to three months imprisonment and a 12-month good behaviour order.
The applicant appeared before the Tribunal on 24 September 2020 to give evidence and present arguments. The Tribunal also received oral evidence from Otgondalai Byambasuren the applicant’s wife. The hearing was conducted with the assistance of an interpreter in the Mongolian and English languages.
The applicant was represented in relation to the review by his registered migration agent. The representative attended the Tribunal hearing.
Written submission – 22 September 2020
In summary, the representative’s submission sets out the following factors the applicant requested be considered in his case:
In relation to the charges against the applicant under the Crimes Act 1900, Ms Byambasuren denies the incidents as described by police; instead she expected police to sort out a family misunderstanding and regrets calling them. The applicant and Ms Byambasuren are qualified forensic scientists who are humiliated that a family misunderstanding led to a court case. The family, with their two young children came to Australia for Ms Byambasuren to pursue studies in psychology for reasons of better employment in Mongolia. The applicant and his wife had been working long and erratic hours and had difficulty adjusting to life in Australia leading to frustrations and “the incident in question”. The applicant was released on a good behaviour bond and is living with his family. He has no history of such incidents and does not have a propensity for violent behaviour. The applicant’s family depend on him and have been coping with the financial burden of study fees and living expenses. The applicant submits the grounds for cancellation do not exist because he has always been law abiding and hard working. Ms Byambasuren fully supports him and is distressed by the matter.
The submission refers to compelling reasons for the applicant to remain in Australia which is primarily the negative impact on their children. The oldest child in the family does not want the applicant to leave and would be devastated if he had to return to Mongolia. The applicant relies on the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. The applicant and his wife have made an effort to spend quality time as a family. They have no family support in Australia and the applicant is seeking to remain in Australia until his wife completes her studies.
The hearing – 22 September 2020
The applicant gave evidence about his arrival in Australia along with his two sons to accompany his wife while she was taking courses in English and psychology. The applicant explained he had been working and looking after their children while his wife studied.
The applicant said he had left his job to accompany his wife to Australia but unlike their situation in Mongolia, they were very busy and working difficult jobs. The parties had been unable to spend much time as a family and the children had not initially adapted to the Australian lifestyle. According to the evidence, he and his wife were arguing due to not spending time together and Ms Byambasuren wanted to divorce him. The applicant was stressed and afraid of losing his wife and children and he physically abused her. Ms Byambasuren called the police, but she believed the police would take the applicant away to calm down and she did not expect what went on to happen.
The applicant explained he and his wife have been together for 11 years and claimed this is the first time anything like it has happened. The applicant was taken to the police station then transferred to prison. He said he was detained for three months during which time he missed his family felt very “guilty”. The applicant was not granted bail but after the final hearing in his case he was released on a good behaviour bond and able to live with his family again. At the time of the incident, Ms Byambasuren was admitted to hospital, but the applicant said there was no injury to her. The applicant claimed that when he was in prison there were no translators and he could not understand what was going on.
The Tribunal asked the applicant if he accepted there were grounds to cancel his visa. The applicant said his conduct may have led to charges, but he did not accept his visa being cancelled and reiterated he had signed papers when there were no interpreters. The applicant advised he is very sorry for what happened and that he and his wife are happy again. It was submitted the applicant and his wife had studied forensics in Russia, they had worked for the government and had no criminal history. The applicant requested he be given a second chance. The applicant did not deny the assault against his wife happened but claimed the police officer who took statements exaggerated it, and it was not as serious as recorded in those papers. He claimed it was not that serious or dangerous, his wife had apologised to him also and they were actually both at fault.
Regarding any compelling need to remain in Australia, the applicant stated he needs to stay for his wife and children. He said he has to support them financially and is very close to his eldest son. It was also claimed it would be hard for Ms Byambasuren to study and take care of the children. While he was in prison, it was hard for her to support the family. The applicant advised he had complied with all other visa conditions.
The applicant was asked about the degree of hardship that may be caused by his visa being cancelled. The applicant submitted he had a good job in Mongolia but sacrificed it to accompany his wife to Australia. He said he will not leave his children without their father or his wife without support. He said if he has to leave Australia, because of COVID-19 borders are closed and there are only charter flights which means he cannot go back. The applicant claimed if he left, there would be no future for the family apart. The applicant said it is difficult to see the children crying, and it would be hard to start his career again. The Tribunal reminded the applicant a Student visa is temporary and visa holders are meant to return to their home countries. The applicant said they were depending on Ms Byambasuren’s studies and future career in Mongolia. According to the applicant, his wife does not want to be separated from him and it would affect the family negatively, especially the children. It was claimed the family could be destroyed because he made one mistake and is asking for a chance to be with his family and support them until his wife finishes her studies.
The Tribunal asked the applicant if he understood the legal consequences of visa cancellation, including that he may be required to depart Australia and may not be able to apply for another visa for a three-year period. The applicant said that would be very hard and he just wants to stay until Ms Byambasuren completes her studies, then they will go back. The applicant indicated there are no reasons why he cannot return to Mongolia but he wants to remain to support his family and is requesting one more year. He said he does not want his children to suffer, or to grow up without their father.
Ms Byambasuren made a statement and explained that before the incident, she and the applicant had not been spending time together and were not talking about their issues. She said they were too stressed and busy with their schedules. The Tribunal asked about the situation should they encounter stress in future. It was submitted they have changed their schedule and Ms Byambasuren is no longer working and they are getting online couples therapy from Mongolia. They are spending every weekend together to go sightseeing, are trying to talk more and be more understanding of each other. Ms Byambasuren said that because they moved to a new environment, it was hard adapting to the situation. She said it stemmed from them not arranging their lives well, but they are having therapy. It was submitted the children are adapting to life in Australia and are learning English. Ms Byambasuren said she could not imagine living without the applicant and the children were upset and emotionally hurt when the applicant was in prison. It was requested she be able to finish her studies and then the family will go back to Mongolia together.
359A letter
The Tribunal wrote to the applicant on 12 October 2020 inviting him to comment or respond to the following information:
·The Tribunal has considered the Australian Federal Police (AFP) Statement of Facts in relation to criminal charges brought against you in February 2020. The information contained in the police document is not favourable to your application for review of a decision to cancel your student visa.
·According to the AFP Statement of Facts you were charged with five separate criminal offences against your spouse and the offences took place in the presence of your children. During the Tribunal hearing you claimed that what occurred was not as serious as that described by police, however, the AFP Statement of Facts is a detailed account of events that appear to have been given by witnesses. Your claim is not consistent with the information in the police statement.
·Your representative’s post-hearing submission dated 22 September 2020 describes the events that occurred as a “tiff/misunderstanding” and that (you) “Mr Ganbaatar does not have a propensity for violent behaviour.” This characterisation is also not consistent with the information in the AFP Statement of Facts and with you having been charged with violent offences.
He was also invited to provide the following information in writing:
·Evidence regarding the outcome of criminal charges against you and the penalty imposed.
The AFP Statement of Facts was provided to the applicant with the invitation to comment. The applicant was advised the information is relevant to the review because the criminal charges against him were serious and involved violence and it appeared he was seeking to downplay the events that took place. He was told that depending on his comment or response and subject to consideration of submissions put forward, the information contained in the AFP Statement of Facts may result in a finding that the circumstances that led to the cancellation of the visa weigh in favour of the Tribunal exercising its discretion to cancel the visa. The Tribunal stated that if it relied on the information, the decision under review may be affirmed,
Applicant’s response dated 22 October 2020
The applicant responded to the invitation to comment as follows:
We refer to the above matter, we write this correspondence to resolve the confusion regarding our usage of the phrase 'domestic tiff/misunderstandings.
We affirm our usage of this term and maintain our position on the visa revocation matter of Mr Ganbaatar. Whilst the DPP initially charged Mr Ganbaatar with 5 offences, and upon representations from Mr Ganbaatar's solicitors he pleaded to and was convicted of only 2 of the initial 5 charges. The learned tribunal refers almost exclusively the account of events set out in the statement of facts, and as such does not encapsulate the entirety of Mr Ganbaatar' s matter.
Mr Ganbaatar was sentenced for two out of five of the initial charges, he was and still is remorseful for the actions of which he was convicted of. As such, about the underlying Australian principles of the presumption of innocence, it is not reasonable to consider any of the allegations that do not correlate with the two offences that he was convicted of. The fact that the DPP withdrew 3 of the 5 charges is evidence of the exaggeration or lack of evidence found in the AFP statement of facts, it is unreasonable for the tribunal to consider any allegations outside the charges of which he was convicted of, those being:
a)Choking, Suffocation and Strangulation — of which he was sentenced 3 months and 21 days discounted from 6 months — 2112 — S28(2)(a) Crimes Act 1900 — This offence carries a maximum penalty of 5 years, the fact that Mr Ganbaatar was sentenced to only 3 months in total is significant and demonstrates the low severity of his offence; and
b)Common Assault— 12 months Good Behaviour order — 2438 — s 26 Crimes Act 1900.
Mr Ganbaatar served his time at the Alexander Maconochie Centre and has since been on a good behaviour bond since 29 May 2020 due to expire on 29 May 2021. There is remorse for the actions of Mr Ganbaatar, but a 'tiff' is a reasonable description of the occurrence of events. Mr Ganbaatar and his whole family were under immense amounts of stress, and, in a moment of weakness Mr Ganbaatar acted out, the whole event lasted only a few minutes and Mr Ganbaatar stopped himself from causing any meaningful harm, further, whilst his children were allegedly in the room at the time of the event, they were watching TV and paying no attention to the events up until their mother calling out for assistance. Following his custody within the AMC and his detention with immigration, he has reconciled with his family and is now happily living with his wife and two children. He does not have a history of violence prior to these events and has not since harmed anybody in any way.
It should be noted in almost all cases that statement of facts are rushed out by the Police, the alleged victims and witnesses of alleged offences are not thinking rationally, further, by failing to consider Mr Ganbaatar' s life following his custody, the tribunal is not given the full image of Mr Ganbaatar' s character.
Moreover, in Mongolia, where Mr Ganbaatar and Ms Byambasuren come from, the police perform a mediatory role in regards to family tiffs, Ms Byambasuren expected this from the police, the police greatly escalated the matter well above what the couple expected.
Mrs Byambasuren remains supportive to have her husband remain in Australia and urge the member to consider the incidences in the matter as a misunderstanding of cultural norms in different countries.
For the following reasons, the Tribunal has concluded that the decision to cancel the applicant’s visa should be affirmed.
CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE
Under s.116 of the Act, the Minister may cancel a visa if he or she is satisfied that certain grounds specified in that provision are made out. Relevantly, to this case, these include the ground set out in s.116(1)(e). If satisfied that the ground for cancellation is made out, the decision maker must proceed to consider whether the visa should be cancelled, having regard to all the relevant circumstances, which may include matters of government policy.
Does the ground for cancellation exist?
A visa may be cancelled under s.116(1)(e) if the Minister is satisfied that the presence of the visa holder in Australia is or may be, or would or might be, a risk to: the health, safety or good order of the Australian community or a segment of the Australian community; or the health or safety of an individual or individuals. There does not have to be, any direct, solid or certain foundation before the power can arise. It can arise on the possibility that some event occurred in the past: Gong v MIBP [2016] FCCA 561, at [41].
The expression ‘good order of the Australian community’ is not defined in the Act. Although considering an earlier version of s.116(1)(e), the reasoning in Tien v MIMA (1998) 89 FCR 80 is still relevant. The Court held (at 94) that the term must be construed in the context in which it appears, that is juxtaposed to the words ‘the health, safety’ of the Australian community. That is, it contains a public order element and concerns activities which have an impact on public activities or which manifest themselves in a public way. It requires that there be an element of risk that the person’s presence in Australia might be disruptive to the proper administration or observance of the law or might create difficulties or public disruption in relation to the values, balance and equilibrium of Australian society.
The Tribunal assessed the applicant’s submissions in determining whether the grounds for cancellation exist. In the written submission of 22 September 2020, it was claimed the applicant has always been law abiding and does not have a propensity for violence. While this appears to refer to the situation prior to the applicant arriving in Australia based on police reports from Mongolia, it is no longer the case since he was convicted of violent offences. At the Tribunal hearing the applicant conceded it was his conduct that led to him being charged but did not accept his visa being cancelled. The applicant implied he had not understood the charges and had signed papers without the assistance of an interpreter, but no evidence supports this assertion. In addition, the AFP Statement of Facts records that when the applicant was interviewed, a Mongolian interpreter was used via telephone, but the applicant was not questioned as it was not clear whether he understood his rights. In the written response of 22 October 2020, the applicant reaffirmed his position on his visa being cancelled. It was submitted the applicant was charged with five offences, he plead guilty to two (Choking, Suffocation and Strangulation as well as Common Assault) while three other charges were withdrawn. This information was intended to demonstrate that the AFP Statement of Facts was not accurate, and it was stressed the Tribunal should take account of the applicant’s life following his release from custody. The Tribunal is not satisfied a decision by the DPP to withdraw certain charges alters the fact that the applicant was convicted of two violent offences against his spouse. Regarding the applicant’s behaviour after his release, he has had the opportunity to make submissions in writing and at a hearing and the Tribunal has had due regard to that information.

Having considered the evidence, the Tribunal finds that the presence of the visa holder in Australia is or may be, a risk to the health or safety of an individual or individuals. The applicant has sought to minimise the events that took place by claiming the whole family were under immense stress, he had acted out in a moment of weakness, the incident lasted just minutes and the applicant did not cause any “meaningful” harm. The Tribunal was concerned that the applicant behaved in a violent manner on the grounds of being under stress. Periods of stress from factors such as work, study, or a new living environment are a normal part of family life that many people experience and they do not explain, excuse or justify the applicant’s behaviour, even if the parties themselves consider it to be an aberration. Although it is claimed the children were watching television and only paid attention when their mother called out for assistance, it would nonetheless be distressing for them to witness violence by a parent, in their home.
As stated, there does not have to be, any direct, solid or certain foundation before the power to cancel a visa can arise. For the reasons outlined, the Tribunal is satisfied that the ground for cancellation in s.116(1)(e) exists in this case. As that ground does not require mandatory cancellation under s.116(3), the Tribunal must proceed to consider whether the visa should be cancelled.
Consideration of discretion
There are no matters specified in the Act or Regulations that must be considered in the exercise of this discretion. The Tribunal has had regard to the circumstances of this case, including matters raised by the applicant, and matters in the Department’s Procedures Advice Manual (PAM3) ‘General visa cancellation powers’.
· the purpose of the visa holder’s travel and stay in Australia, whether the visa holder has a compelling need to travel to or remain in Australia
The applicant came to Australia as a dependent on his wife’s Student Visa. Prior to the applicant’s visa being cancelled, Ms Byambasuren was studying and the applicant was working, as he was entitled to do. On the evidence before it, the Tribunal is satisfied that the applicant’s original intention to travel to and stay in Australia was to support his wife’s study.
The applicant made submissions regarding what he considered to be a compelling need to remain in Australia. He said he has to stay to support his family financially as it would be hard for Ms Byambasuren to study and take care of the children too. The applicant also advised he needs to be with his eldest son with whom he has a close relationship. The written submission of 22 September 2020 states the couple’s oldest child would be devastated if the applicant had to return to Mongolia.
The Tribunal is not satisfied the applicant’s claims demonstrate a powerful or convincing reason for needing to stay in Australia. It will be a matter for the parties themselves to decide whether Ms Byambasuren continues her education in Australia without the applicant in the country. Although there will be necessary adjustments to be made, it, the majority of students in Australia support themselves without a partner accompanying them and there would be nothing to prevent the applicant continuing to support his wife from Mongolia if she makes the decision to remain. While it would no doubt be difficult for the primary visa holder to study and take care of children on her own until she completes her education, it is the applicant’s conduct that led to the situation. Visa holders are expected to abide by the laws of the country and a mistaken belief concerning the role of police officers (that they would mediate in the case of family disputes) does not negate that responsibility. For the above reasons, the Tribunal is not satisfied the applicant has a compelling need to remain in Australia and places no weight in his favour when assessing this criterion.
· the degree of hardship that may be caused (financial, psychological, emotional or other hardship)
Regarding the degree of hardship that may be caused by the applicant’s visa being cancelled, the applicant said he left his job in Mongolia to accompany his wife to Australia and he will not leave his children without their father or his wife without support. Both parties submitted Ms Byambasuren and the children do not want to be separated from the applicant and they were counting on her future career in Mongolia. It was claimed separation would affect the family negatively, especially the children and that the applicant made a mistake. The applicant requested a chance to be with his family and support them until his wife finishes her studies. It was further submitted that leaving Australia would be difficult for the applicant due to COVID-19 border closures and the unavailability of flights.
The Tribunal has assessed the evidence and submissions regarding the degree of hardship that will be caused to the parties if the applicant’s visa is cancelled. Ms Byambasuren will be able to continue her studies as she holds a Student Visa and the applicant may be able to continue to support her financially if he is employed in his home country. However, clearly the applicant and his wife will have to make difficult decisions regarding their family arrangements in the short term if the applicant is required to depart Australia and COVID-19 is having an adverse impact on international students. The Tribunal accepts that there will be a degree of hardship for the family resulting from the applicant’s visa being cancelled and has given weight in favour of the applicant in this regard.
· circumstances in which ground of cancellation arose. If cancellation is being considered because of relationship breakdown, whether the relationship has broken down as a result of family violence. The guidelines indicate that as a general rule, a visa should not be cancelled where the circumstances in which the ground for cancellation arose were beyond the visa holder’s control
In this case, the circumstances in which the ground of cancellation arose were not due to family violence in the context of a relationship breakdown. It occurred due to family violence within a continuing marriage, specifically because the applicant was convicted of “Choking, Suffocation and Strangulation” as well as “Common Assault” against his spouse Ms Byambasuren. According to the evidence, the parties argued over a possible divorce and the issue between them was escalated by the applicant to the point of violence. Since the incident the applicant and his wife have decided to continue their relationship.
Both parties gave evidence as to what occurred, and the reasons for it. It was claimed the applicant was under pressure because the couple and their children had difficulty adjusting to life in Australia, they were working and had not been able to spend much time together due to their busy schedules. In his written statement and in the representative’s submissions, the applicant concedes his behaviour led to the charges against him but the applicant, and the representative on his behalf, refer to the incident as a “tiff/misunderstanding” which it clearly was not. The submissions regarding cultural differences in terms of misunderstanding the role of police do not mitigate the offending. The applicant claimed through his representative that police statements are often “rushed out” and the AFP Statement of Facts in this case did not cover the entirety of the matter. It is noted however that the applicant did not dispute any specifics of the AFP Statement of Facts, including the description given by witnesses of the physical assault against Ms Byambasuren, or the fact that the couple’s seven-year-old son had to run to a neighbouring relative’s house for help.
The Tribunal has assessed the evidence in this case, taking into account the AFP document as well as submissions and responses to information put to the applicant. The Tribunal finds the circumstances in which the ground for cancellation arose do not favour the applicants claims that his visa should not be cancelled. This is because the offending by the applicant was physically violent in nature and took place in a domestic setting where children were present. In addition, it resulted from disputes over work, study and family life. No amount of frustration or daily stresses justifies a violent response against a partner. For these reasons, the Tribunal finds the circumstances in which ground of cancellation arose weigh against the applicant in the Tribunal’s consideration of whether to exercise its discretion to cancel the visa.
· past and present behaviour of the visa holder towards the Department
There is no evidence before the Tribunal to indicate the applicant has not cooperated with the Department.
· Whether there would be consequential cancellations under s.140
There is no evidence before the Tribunal that there would be any consequential cancellations under s.140 of the Act. The visas of Ms Byambasuren and the children were not cancelled and the primary visa holder is able to continue her studies in Australia.
· Whether there are mandatory legal consequences, such as whether cancellation would result in the visa holder being unlawful and liable to detention, or whether indefinite detention is a possible consequence of cancellation, or whether there are provisions in the Act which prevent the person from making a valid visa application without the Minister’s intervention
The cancellation of the visa means that the applicant could potentially become an unlawful non-citizen liable for detention and removal from Australia. The applicant would be subject to s.48 of the Migration Act which would limit his options for applying for a visa. In future the applicant would also have to satisfy Public Interest Criterion (PIC) 4013 which may prevent the grant of a visa for up to three years. There is no evidence to indicate the applicant may be subject to indefinite detention as a consequence of cancellation. The Tribunal has assessed the applicant’s claims and evidence and considers the mandatory legal consequences of cancellation do not outweigh the other considerations in this case.
· Whether any international obligations, including non-refoulement and best interests of the children as a primary consideration, would be breached as a result of the cancellation
The Tribunal considered the submission regarding the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child and whether the cancellation of the applicant’s visa would breach the Australia’s obligations in this regard. Cancellation of the applicant’s visa would mean the applicant can no longer remain in Australia and would be required to return to his home country. The primary visa holder, Ms Byambasuren and their two children would be able to remain in Australia on a temporary basis while the Student visa is current. The parties themselves would have to decide what their family arrangements will be at that time. On the evidence submitted the applicants are planning to return to Mongolia after Ms Byambasuren completes her studies and at no point will the children be separated from their parents. The Tribunal is satisfied Australia’s international obligations regarding the best interests of the children will not be breached if the applicant’s visa is cancelled.
· If it is a permanent visa, whether the former visa holder has strong family, business or other ties in Australia
The Subclass 500 Student Visa is not a permanent visa.
· any other relevant matters
The Tribunal has carefully weighed the submissions in this case and has also considered the impact the cancellation of the applicant’s visa will have on Ms Byambasuren. There is no doubt that as well as being the victim of family violence, Ms Byambasuren has had to endure the uncertainty around her husband’s visa status in Australia. While the Tribunal understands an adverse outcome will necessarily affect Ms Byambasuren, it is not a valid reason for the applicant to remain in Australia holding a Student visa. If the applicant’s visa were not cancelled, the Tribunal would be concerned about his demonstrated propensity to react violently when under stress that has already resulted in criminal convictions.
Although the effect of the visa cancellation upon Ms Byambasuren is unfortunate and will result in the parties having to change their plans, based on the applicant’s past behaviour, the Tribunal has ongoing concerns for the future. For this reason, the adverse consequences for Ms Byambasuren do not outweigh the reasons in favour of the Tribunal exercising the discretion to cancel the applicant’s visa.
Conclusion
The Tribunal has assessed the applicant’s circumstances individually and cumulatively. Although there are some aspects in the applicant’s case that weigh somewhat in his favour, on balance, the Tribunal is satisfied that most considerations do not favour the applicant’s request that his visa not be cancelled. The offences for which the applicant was convicted were serious and involved physical violence. For the reasons outlined in this decision, the Tribunal considers it appropriate in this case to exercise the discretion to cancel the visa.
Considering the circumstances as a whole, the Tribunal concludes that the visa should be cancelled
DECISION
The Tribunal affirms the decision to cancel the applicant’s Subclass 500 (Student) visa.
Wendy Banfield
Member

[2020] AATA 6001

Key Legal Topics

Areas of Law

Immigration

Administrative Law

Legal Concepts

Judicial Review

Procedural Fairness

Statutory Construction

Charge

Intention

Remedies