Jouet Crowyn (Migration)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal reviewed a decision to cancel the Subclass 457 (Temporary Work (Skilled)) visa of the applicant, Ms. Jouet Crowyn. The applicant had been sponsored by Bread and Roses Pty Ltd to work as a Baker. The dispute arose when the sponsoring employer went into liquidation, and the applicant subsequently ceased employment. The applicant also suffered a work-related injury requiring surgery, which prevented her from performing her role as a baker and finding a new sponsor within the prescribed 90-day period.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the decision to cancel the applicant's visa should be upheld. This involved considering the grounds for cancellation under section 116(1)(b) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) and, if a ground for cancellation existed, whether the discretion to cancel the visa should be exercised. The Tribunal was required to weigh the circumstances of the applicant, including the reasons for her inability to secure new sponsorship and the potential hardship that cancellation would cause.

The Tribunal found that while a ground for cancellation existed, it was not a mandatory cancellation. In exercising its discretion, the Tribunal considered the applicant's purpose for remaining in Australia, including her desire for her financially dependent daughter to complete her studies and apprenticeship, and her ongoing rehabilitation for a work-related injury. Despite the applicant not having a current sponsor, the Tribunal accepted that her capacity to secure sponsorship had been impacted by her injury. Crucially, the Tribunal gave significant weight to the hardship that cancellation would cause, including the emotional hardship of separating the applicant from her adult son, who intended to remain in Australia, and the financial hardship of returning to France without employment or accommodation. The Tribunal also noted the potential hardship to her daughter's apprenticeship.

Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the decision to cancel the applicant's visa and substituted a decision not to cancel her Subclass 457 visa. The Tribunal noted it had no jurisdiction concerning the other named applicants.