Goli (Migration)

This matter concerned an application for review of a decision by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) to affirm the cancellation of the applicant's Student (Temporary) (Class TU) visa, subclass 573. The applicant, who had entered Australia as the partner of the primary visa holder, was convicted of an offence against a law of a State, which constituted a ground for cancellation under section 116(g) of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth).

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the Tribunal had erred in law in its consideration of the discretion to cancel the applicant's visa. Specifically, the court was required to determine if the Tribunal had adequately considered the degree of hardship that cancellation would cause to the applicant and his family, including his wife's ongoing studies, the children's education and adjustment to a new education system, and the potential mental health impacts.

The Tribunal found that the ground for cancellation under s 116(g) existed and, as it did not mandate cancellation, it proceeded to consider its discretion. The Tribunal had regard to the applicant's stated purpose for travel, which was to support his wife's business degree studies, and acknowledged that she had one year remaining. It also noted that the children had lived in Australia for four years and had become accustomed to life there. However, the Tribunal gave little weight to the applicant's compliance with visa conditions, as this was a basic expectation. In assessing hardship, the applicant argued that his wife would be unable to manage childcare and work if he were to return to Italy alone, though it was clarified that this concern primarily related to their son, as their eldest daughter was over 18 and had finished school. The Tribunal noted that the children were never intended to remain in Australia permanently, given the temporary nature of the visa.

The court ultimately affirmed the Tribunal's decision, finding no error of law in its consideration of the discretionary factors. The Tribunal had taken into account the relevant circumstances, including the applicant's arguments regarding hardship and the purpose of his stay, and had provided reasons for its decision to affirm the cancellation.