Jayasinghe (Migration)

This matter concerned an appeal by Mr Jayasinghe against a decision by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (the Tribunal) to cancel his Student (Temporary) (Class TU) visa, subclass 500. The cancellation was based on the ground that Mr Jayasinghe was no longer a member of the family unit of Ms Kankanamalage, which was the basis upon which his visa had been granted. Mr Jayasinghe did not dispute that his marriage to Ms Kankanamalage had ended and that he was no longer a member of her family unit for the purposes of the relevant regulation.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the Tribunal had erred in exercising its discretion to cancel Mr Jayasinghe's visa. While the ground for cancellation under section 116(1)(a) of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth) was established, it did not mandate cancellation. Therefore, the Tribunal was required to consider whether to exercise its discretion to cancel the visa, taking into account all relevant circumstances.

The Tribunal acknowledged that Mr Jayasinghe's marriage was genuine at the time of his arrival in Australia. Crucially, it found that despite the divorce, Mr Jayasinghe remained closely involved in the raising of his son, Abhimaan. Evidence presented, including bank statements and statements from both Mr Jayasinghe and Ms Kankanamalage, demonstrated ongoing financial support for their child and adherence to a shared parenting arrangement. Ms Kankanamalage highlighted Mr Jayasinghe's significant financial, emotional, and social contributions to Abhimaan's development, noting her own financial constraints as a full-time PhD student. The Tribunal was satisfied that these circumstances warranted a favourable exercise of discretion.

The Tribunal set aside the decision to cancel Mr Jayasinghe's visa.