Gandla (Migration)

This matter concerned the review of a decision to cancel the Subclass 457 (Temporary Work (Skilled)) visa of the first applicant, Mr Gandla. The second applicant was noted as having no jurisdiction. The dispute arose because Mr Gandla had ceased employment for more than 90 consecutive days, failing to comply with a condition of his visa. He claimed hardship and provided insufficient evidence to support his claims.

The Tribunal was required to determine whether the ground for cancellation under section 116(1)(b) of the Migration Act 1958 existed, specifically whether Mr Gandla had complied with condition 8107(3)(b) of his visa. This condition stipulated that if a visa holder ceased employment, they must not remain unemployed for more than 90 consecutive days. The Tribunal also had to consider whether, having found a ground for cancellation, the visa should be cancelled, exercising its discretion in light of all relevant circumstances.

The Tribunal found that Mr Gandla had indeed failed to comply with condition 8107(3)(b) as he resigned from his employment and was without work for over 90 consecutive days. While a new nomination and visa application were lodged later, the Tribunal placed little weight on this, noting that the applicant had effectively terminated the purpose of his original visa. The Tribunal considered the applicant's claims of hardship and his reasons for leaving his employment, but found the evidence insufficient and placed little weight on his assertion of being unaware of the visa conditions.

Ultimately, the Tribunal affirmed the decision to cancel Mr Gandla's Subclass 457 visa.