KHAN (Migration)

[2017] AATA 438

KHAN (Migration) [2017] AATA 438 (14 March 2017)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

APPLICANT:  Mr AMER SARWAR KHAN

CASE NUMBER:  1617618

DIBP REFERENCE(S):  BCC2016/2941202

MEMBER:Denise Connolly

DATE:14 March 2017

PLACE OF DECISION:  Sydney

DECISION:The Tribunal affirms the decision to cancel the applicant’s Subclass 457 (Temporary Work (Skilled)) visa.

Statement made on 14 March 2017 at 2:25pm

CATCHWORDS

Migration – Cancellation – Temporary Business Entry (Class UC) visa – Subclass 457 (Temporary Work (Skilled)) – Condition 8107 – Applicant ceased sponsored employment over 90 days – Employment termination date disputed – Unfair dismissal claims – New employer seeking nomination – Return to Pakistan for injury treatment – Seeking permanent migration – Private debts

LEGISLATION

Migration Act 1958, s 116(1)(b)
Migration Regulation 1994

STATEMENT OF DECISION AND REASONS

APPLICATION FOR REVIEW

1. This is an application for review of a decision dated 17 October 2016 made by a delegate of the Minister for Immigration to cancel the applicant’s Subclass 457 (Temporary Work (Skilled)) visa under s.116 of the Migration Act 1958 (the Act).

2. The applicant has provided to the Tribunal a copy of the delegate’s decision record. It records that the applicant was granted the Subclass 457 visa on 4 July 2013, valid until 4 July 2017. He was sponsored by Brightstar Consulting Group Pty Ltd to work in the nominated occupation Software and Applications Programmer.  Condition 8107 was attached to the visa. It requires, among other things, that the applicant work in the occupation listed in the approved nomination and that if he ceases employment, the period during which he ceases employment must not exceed 90 consecutive days. The Department was informed that the applicant had ceased employment with the sponsor, effective 18 April 2016. On 22 September 2016 the Department sent the applicant a notice of intention to consider cancellation (NOICC) on the basis that he was in breach of condition 8107. The applicant responded stating that he ceased employment on 5 July 2016, not 18 April 2016. He claims to have been on unpaid sick leave from September 2015 due to a knee injury sustained while performing his duties. He claims he continued to work for his employer while overseas, selling second hand laptops that his employer had shipped from Sydney to Pakistan. He claims his salary continued until February 2016 when it ceased due to his long absence. He claims however that he was unaware of his termination of employment until he received the NOICC. He believes he was on unpaid sick leave. He claims he was wrongfully dismissed.

3. On 17 October 2016 the delegate cancelled the visa under s.116(1)(b) on the basis that the applicant had ceased employment for a period exceeding 90 days and had therefore breached condition 8107. The delegate noted that the applicant’s evidence about the termination of employment was different to that of the sponsoring employer and appears to have preferred the sponsor’s evidence.

4. The applicant appeared before the Tribunal on 3 March 2017 to give evidence and present arguments. The Tribunal hearing was conducted with the assistance of an interpreter in the Urdu and English languages.

5. The applicant was represented in relation to the review by his registered migration agent who also attended the hearing.

6. 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

7. 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)(b). 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?

8. A visa may be cancelled under s.116(1)(b) if the Minister or the Tribunal is satisfied that the holder did not comply with a condition of their visa. In this instance condition 8107 attached to the applicant’s visa. This condition requires, among other things, that the applicant work in the occupation listed in the approved nomination unless certain circumstances apply, and that if the visa holder ceases employment, the period during which the holder ceases employment must not exceed 90 consecutive days.

9. The delegate’s decision record records that the sponsor advised the department in writing that the applicant had ceased employment with affect from 18 April 2016. At the hearing the applicant disputed this. He referred to an email which he received dated 1 March 2016 which states that his salary had ceased from 29 February 2016 and that if there was further absence it would result in termination of his employment. However it was not until 5 July 2016 that his sponsor wrote to him advising that his employment was terminated. A copy of that email is attached to the department’s file.

10. Having considered all of the evidence, the Tribunal agrees with the applicant that his employment was not terminated by the sponsor until 5 July 2016. It is not satisfied he was informed, prior to this date, of the sponsor’s decision to terminate his employment. Accordingly the Tribunal finds that the applicant ceased employment with the sponsor on 5 July 2016. He confirmed at the hearing that he did not return to that employment. The Tribunal finds therefore that the applicant ceased employment in the occupation listed in the approved nomination, Software and Applications Programmer, and the period during which he ceased employment has now exceeded 90 days. Consequently the applicant has breached condition 8107.

11. For these reasons, the Tribunal is satisfied that the ground for cancellation in s.116(1)(b) exists. As that ground does not require mandatory cancellation under s.116(3), the Tribunal must proceed to consider whether the power to cancel the visa should be exercised.

    Consideration of discretion

12. There are no matters specified in the Act or Regulations that are required to be considered in relation to the exercise of the discretion to cancel the visa. However, in considering whether to exercise its discretion to cancel the applicant’s visa, the Tribunal has had regard to the relevant circumstances including but not limited to matters identified in the Department’s Procedures Advice Manual PAM3 ‘General visa cancellation powers’.

13. At the hearing the Tribunal discussed with the applicant matters relevant to its consideration of whether it should exercise its power to cancel the visa. The following is a summary of the applicant’s oral evidence provided to the Tribunal at the hearing.

14. The applicant provided to the Tribunal immediately prior to the hearing evidence that his company, Zoraiz Technologies Pty Ltd, was registered on 6 February 2017. The applicant confirmed that he, along with an Australian citizen friend who is currently residing in Pakistan, is a director of the company. His friend is seeking financial investment to run the business and is returning to Australia shortly. The applicant’s representative provided to the Tribunal a submission advising that the newly established company wishes to sponsor the applicant for a Subclass 457 visa, and sponsorship and nomination applications will be lodged as soon as relevant documentation and information are provided.

15. The applicant told the Tribunal that his wife and children reside in Pakistan. He understood that condition 8107 was attached to his visa. He commenced working with the sponsor on 25 July 2013 after the visa was granted on 4 July 2013. He left Australia on 25 September 2015 and resided in Pakistan until 25 June 2016. He told the Tribunal that he went to Pakistan because he suffered a knee injury while working in Melbourne. He had an x-ray in Australia and was told that there was nothing seriously wrong with his knee but he continued to suffer pain. He told his sponsor that he would be going to Pakistan for treatment as his health insurance did not cover the treatment he required. Also there was no one in Australia to take care of him, so he returned to Pakistan to be cared for by his wife. He claims that his sponsor agreed to his medical leave and continued to pay him until February 2016.

16. The applicant’s sponsor Brightstar is a software company. The applicant was introduced to the sponsor because his brother was working for Brightstar. The applicant’s employment was based in Sydney but the sponsor had clients in Melbourne so he used to travel to Melbourne. Essentially the tasks of the nominated occupation related to computer programming. However he also sold some secondhand laptops in Australia.

17. The applicant returned to Pakistan and had a knee arthroscopy in October 2015. It took him a long time to recover. His sponsor asked him to sell secondhand laptops in Pakistan while he was recovering. The applicant sold the secondhand laptops from his home. He started doing this in October 2015 and in total sold about 500 laptops. The agreement was that he would be paid 40% of the overall profit. The Tribunal noted that selling laptops was not a duty of a computer programmer and that it appeared that he was not working in the occupation listed in the approved nomination. The Tribunal explained that this may also have been a breach of condition 8107. The applicant indicated that he was in fact on medical leave at the time. Initially it was planned that he would be on medical leave for 15 days only. His sponsor agreed to pay his salary while he was recovering. He has provided evidence, bank statements, that he was paid by the sponsor up until 24 February 2016. He acknowledged that he was selling laptops during this period.

18. The Tribunal noted that the sponsor had informed the Department that he had ceased his employment with the sponsor in April 2016. It asked the applicant if he knew why the sponsor had provided the Department with this advice. The applicant acknowledged that he received the email from the sponsor dated 1 March 2016 advising that if he continued to be absent from work his employment would be terminated. However he claims that shortly after receiving this email he had a conversation with his sponsor and explained that he had not yet fully recovered but that once he had he would return to his employment in Australia. When he returned to Australia in June 2016 he assumed that he would be returning to his sponsored employment. However on his return when he tried to contact his sponsor, the sponsor refused to answer the phone. On 5 July 2016 the sponsor sent an email terminating his employment. He does not know why the sponsor advised the Department that his employment had been terminated in April 2016. However he told the Tribunal that he had stopped selling the laptops for the sponsor in January 2016.

19. The Tribunal asked the applicant if he was in fact unfit to perform the duties of the nominated occupation, given he was able to sell 500 laptops in the period October 2015 to January 2016. The applicant indicated that he was not entirely fit to return to work by the end of January 2016. When he discussed this with his sponsor, the sponsor indicated he could come back to work when he had fully recovered. He had no explanation for the sponsor’s email of 1 March 2016 warning him to return to work.

20. The Tribunal noted from the bank statements provided that the applicant had ceased to receive income from the sponsor in February 2016, suggesting that this was when his employment ceased. The applicant indicated that while his sick leave payments had been exhausted the sponsor agreed that he did not need to return to Australia to work until he was fully recovered. He indicated that he had ongoing contact with the sponsor in the period March 2016 to June 2016 but has no record of this because they talked on their mobile phones. He claims that in May 2016 he informed the sponsor that he was fully recovered and he would be returning to Australia in June 2016. The sponsor did not tell him that he had told the Department that the applicant had ceased employment with the sponsor.

21. The Tribunal asked if there was any conflict between the applicant and the sponsor. He indicated that there had been some discussions regarding recovery of sales for the laptops. The sponsor was asking for cash. There had also been some conflict because the sponsor was planning to close his software house. The sponsor had employed other sponsored Subclass 457 visa holders, one of whom had had his visa cancelled. He is not sure of the circumstances of that cancellation. His brother was also sponsored for his Subclass 457 visa and had been residing in Pakistan for more than 2 years. His brother had established a software house in Pakistan for the sponsor for offshore development. The applicant denied working in that software house.

22. The Tribunal asked the applicant about his current employment status. He indicated that he has been trying to find a job since he returned to Australia in June 2016 and has had a couple of interviews but has not been successful in securing sponsored employment. He claimed that he has not worked since June 2016. The Tribunal asked why he has remained in Australia if he has not been able to secure employment. He indicated that he has incurred some debt and wishes to earn income here to repay those debts. However, because he has not been able to secure employment, he has set up the company Zoraiz with an Australian citizen residing in Pakistan who will return to Australia in a couple of weeks. He indicated he has debts of about $60,000 from loans and money spent supporting the family while he was in Pakistan. He indicated he has borrowed money from friends.

23. The Tribunal discussed with the applicant the discretionary factors set out in the Department’s guidelines. The applicant indicated that his purpose from remaining in Australia is that, if he returned to Pakistan, it would be difficult to secure employment. The applicant is currently aged 47. He is the primary breadwinner and needs to earn income to support his family. The Tribunal asked the applicant if he intends to remain in Australia for the rest of his working life. He indicated that, if he was allowed to, he would do this. He indicated that his company intends to make a nomination application to sponsor his employment as a software developer in Australia. He indicated that he would remain in Australia permanently if permitted. The Tribunal noted that permanent residence is not the purpose of the Subclass 457 visa which is intended to fill a temporary skills shortage. It indicated that his purpose may not be consistent with the Subclass 457 visa program, particularly when there are only 4 months left on his current Subclass 457 visa. He indicated that while there is only 4 months left at this point in time, at the time the Department cancelled his visa, he had 9 months left.

24. The Tribunal discussed with the applicant his non-compliance with condition 8107 and asked if he was aware of any other non-compliance with visa conditions. He indicated that there has not been any other non-compliance. As far as he is aware there are no concerns regarding his conduct towards the Department.

25. The Tribunal asked the applicant about any hardship which might be caused by a visa cancellation. He indicated that he has debts of about $60,000, in part due to the fact that he has not had income since he returned to Australia in June 2016. He has borrowed money to continue to reside in Australia and to support his family in Pakistan. He is under some pressure to repay debts. The Tribunal noted that his current financial situation appears to be because he has decided to remain in Australia when he has been unable to secure employment and this is a risk he decided to take. It also notes that he remained in Pakistan until June 2016 after his income ceased in February 2016. The applicant indicated that he could afford to do that at the time. He indicated that he expected to be back on his salary from July 2016. The Tribunal asked if the applicant wished to give evidence about any other hardship. He indicated that he has loans to repay and his children are in high school. He needs to be earning income to support his family.

26. The Tribunal discussed with the applicant circumstances in which the ground for cancellation arose. He indicated that the circumstances arose because his sponsor decided to terminate his employment. He was on medical leave until February 2016 and then there was an informal arrangement that he could remain in Pakistan until such time as he had fully recovered. However when he came back to Australia there was no office for him to work in. The sponsor had already closed the business. Before he came to Australia the sponsor said he was in the process of setting up a new office. The applicant tried to contact the sponsor but he would not answer the phone. The sponsor sent the applicant a text message saying that he did not want to meet him. Then he sent the email terminating his employment in July 2016. He has not seen the sponsor since.

27. The applicant understands that as he currently holds a Bridging visa E he will not be detained, if the visa is cancelled, so long as he departs Australia before his bridging visa expires. There are no consequential cancellations. He gave no evidence regarding any fear of returning to Pakistan and made no claims regarding any possible breach of international obligations.

28. The applicant told the Tribunal that he was in the process of setting up a business, Zoraiz, and that the business would then sponsor his Subclass 457 visa. The Tribunal discussed with the applicant the viability of such an arrangement. He indicated that he has experience in the field and he hopes, with the assistance of a local partner, that he will be able to run the business successfully. He indicated that he only secured work rights about 2 weeks ago and was not in a position to work prior to this. His business partner will return to Australia in about 2 or 3 weeks and they will make the nomination application. The Tribunal indicated to the applicant that it would take this information into account but, in these circumstances, it would not agree to wait for sponsorship and nomination applications to be lodged and finalised.

29. The applicant’s representative made the following submissions. She indicated the notice advising the grant of his Subclass 457 visa mentioned that there was a condition 8107 (work limitation) but incorrectly stated that if he stopped working for the sponsor he had to find new employment in 28 days or his visa would be cancelled. She observed that this was incorrect information. She submitted that the applicant has not yet paid any legal costs with respect to his representation. She submitted that he wants to have his Subclass 457 visa reinstated for the purpose of setting up his business. She indicated that because he was not able to secure employment he set up the business to provide a mechanism to have his Subclass 457 visa reinstated. The business will then employ him. She referred to the emails between the sponsor and the applicant and disputed that the email of 1 March 2016 was notifying the applicant of the termination of his employment. He was not officially told of the termination of employment until 5 July 2016 and he was unfairly dismissed. She asserted that the Department sent the NOICC dated 22 September 2016 too early. She noted that, when the Department cancelled his visa on 17 October 2016, it was only 3 months since his employment had been terminated and he should have been sent another notice.

    Assessment of the evidence

30. The Tribunal has taken into account the representative’s submissions. It accepts that the applicants Subclass 457 visa grant notice stated that he had to secure new employment in 28 days or his visa would be cancelled. However it is not satisfied the content of that notice is relevant to the Tribunal’s consideration of whether the applicant’s visa should now be cancelled. It also takes into account the representative’s submissions that as at the date the Department sent the NOICC the applicant had not yet breached condition 8107. As indicated above the Tribunal has found that the applicant ceased employment on 5 July 2016. It agrees therefore that at the time the NOICC was sent there had not yet been a breach of condition 8107 as the period during which he had ceased employment had not yet exceeded 90 consecutive days. However it has now been 8 months since the applicant ceased employment with the sponsor and he has now breached the condition.

1. The Tribunal has taken into account the applicant’s written submission explaining why he returned to Pakistan for medical treatment. Based on medical evidence provided by the applicant, the Tribunal accepts that the applicant underwent a knee arthroscopy in Pakistan on 30 October 2015. He then remained in Pakistan until June 2016 while he recovered. He sold about 500 laptops for his Australian sponsor in Pakistan during the period October 2015 to January 2016.

2. It has been submitted that the applicant was unfairly dismissed by the sponsor. The Tribunal takes into account that the sponsor appears to have approved the applicant’s leave for medical treatment in Pakistan. Based on his bank statements it accepts that the sponsor continued to pay the applicant until February 2016, although this may have been because the applicant was selling secondhand laptops in Pakistan on the sponsor’s behalf. However the Tribunal notes that in March 2016 the sponsor emailed the applicant and warned him that further absence would result in termination of employment. The Tribunal takes into account the applicant’s written and oral assertions that he and the sponsor discussed this further and the sponsor agreed that the applicant could remain in Pakistan while he recovered from his arthroscopy undertaken in October 2015. However the applicant also told the Tribunal that the sponsor told him that he was planning to close his software house. The applicant has also indicated that he has been unable to make contact with the sponsor suggesting the business is no longer operating. In any case the sponsor made it clear to the applicant in the email provided by the applicant to the Department, dated 5 July 2016, that due to his prolonged absence his employment with the sponsor was terminated.

3. The Tribunal has taken into account the applicant’s purpose for remaining in Australia. The Tribunal notes that the applicant has not been able to secure sponsored employment in the 9 months since he returned to Australia. It accepts that he, along with an Australian citizen friend currently in Pakistan, has formed a company, Zoraiz Technologies Pty Ltd. It accepts he now wishes to remain here to set up a software development business. While the applicant has provided documentation that he has registered the business and opened a business bank account, and that he and his business partner are seeking to secure financial investment to run the business, there is no evidence to demonstrate that the applicant’s business proposal is viable. The Tribunal accepts that the applicant intends to lodge with the Department standard business sponsorship and nomination approval applications. However it is not satisfied on the basis of the evidence before it that there is a reasonable likelihood that those applications will be successful in the foreseeable future. The Tribunal accepts the applicant is seeking to set up the business so that he can sponsor his Subclass 457 visa however, on the evidence before it, it is not satisfied there is a reasonable prospect of success in those endeavours. Nor is the Tribunal satisfied on the evidence before it that the applicant will be the subject of an approved nomination to work in sponsored skilled employment in the foreseeable future. It takes into account that his current Subclass 457 visa, the subject of this review, ceases in July 2017. The Tribunal accepts that the applicant wishes to remain in Australia to secure paid employment because he now has significant debts. He has provided to the Tribunal copies of emails indicating he has credit card debts. However the purpose of the Subclass 457 visa is not just to secure paid employment in Australia. It is to secure sponsored employment to work in a skilled occupation for an approved Australian business seeking to fill a skills shortage. The applicant has not been able to secure such sponsored employment since his sponsor terminated his employment in July 2016. The Tribunal gives these factors significant weight in favour of cancelling the visa.

4. The Tribunal has considered the extent of the applicant’s non-compliance with visa conditions. It accepts the applicant’s evidence that he was informed of the termination of his employment in July 2016. Hence he has been in breach of condition 8107 since October 2016, that is, about 5 months. The Tribunal also raised with the applicant its concern that selling secondhand laptops was not a task of the nominated occupation. He has argued that this was undertaken while he was on paid sick leave. The Tribunal has considered the bank statements provided to the Department demonstrating that the applicant was in receipt of income from Brightstar while he was offshore and it does appear to be a regular amount, $2343 per fortnight, which does not suggest these were payments associated with receiving 40% of the overall profit from those sales. Having considered all of this material the Tribunal accepts that the applicant’s visa condition 8107 breach appears to be confined to ceasing employment for a period exceeding 90 consecutive days.

5. The Tribunal has considered the evidence regarding any hardship that may be caused by a visa cancellation. It accepts that the applicant has credit card debts and that he owes money from private loans. However those debts appear to have been incurred because his sick leave was exhausted by February 2016 and his sponsored employment ceased, and he has not worked since. The Tribunal does not accept that the debts already accrued are because of a visa cancellation. The applicant accrued those debts in a period when he has not been able to secure sponsored employment, since his sponsor terminated his employment in July 2016. The Tribunal accepts that he has now established a company with the intention that the company will sponsor the applicant’s Subclass 457 visa. However it is not satisfied that this proposal is viable and that it will resolve his financial difficulties in the foreseeable future. While a visa cancellation may cause some hardship the Tribunal is concerned that the applicant’s financial circumstances will not improve, even if the visa is not cancelled.

6. The Tribunal also accepts that the applicant is the primary breadwinner and he is supporting his wife and school aged children. It accepts a visa cancellation may impact on his family and that he will be disappointed at having to return to Pakistan where he may experience difficulties in securing employment. It takes this evidence into account however as noted above he has not been able to secure sponsored employment in Australia since July 2016.

7. The Tribunal accepts that the ground for cancellation arose because the applicant’s sponsor terminated his employment. In an email dated 5 July 2016 the sponsor indicated that he did this because of the applicant’s prolonged absence, suggesting that it was a factor within the applicant’s control because he chose to remain in Pakistan until June 2016, 9 months after having an arthroscopy. The applicant has also provided an email from the sponsor dated 1 March 2016 warning that if he did not return to work his employment would be terminated.  The applicant has indicated he remained in Pakistan for his recovery. His medical evidence confirms that he had the medical procedure in October 2015. However it does not suggest there was any complication prolonging the recovery period. The applicant claims that he and the sponsor discussed his stay in Pakistan but he does not have evidence of this because those discussions were by mobile phone. The Tribunal notes however the applicant’s evidence indicating that the sponsor’s business closed down so the termination of employment may have occurred in any case. The Tribunal takes into account that the sponsor ceased to employ the applicant and this led to his non-compliance with condition 8107. However the ground for cancellation also arose because the applicant has not been able to secure sponsored employment in a skilled occupation since July 2016. While the Tribunal accepts he is trying to address this issue by setting up a business which will sponsor his visa, as discussed above, the Tribunal has concerns about whether the applicant will be the subject of an approved nomination in the foreseeable future. In those circumstances, even if his visa is not cancelled, he may not be able to comply with condition 8107 for the duration of this Subclass 457 visa.

8. The Department has not indicated any concern regarding the applicant’s conduct towards it and the Tribunal takes this into account.

9. There are no consequential cancellations in this case. The applicant’s wife and children have continued to reside in Pakistan. Nor is there evidence indicating international obligations would be breached as a result of a cancellation. The applicant holds a Bridging visa E so he will not be detained as a consequence of a visa cancellation so long as he departs Australia before that visa expires. The Tribunal understands that the applicant may wish to continue to remain in Australia to establish his business here. His evidence suggests his new business partner will be returning to Australia shortly. The Tribunal is satisfied that the applicant will be able to apply for another Subclass 457 visa offshore if the business is established and approved as a standard business sponsor.

10. The Tribunal has considered all of the oral evidence and the written material provided to the Department and the Tribunal. Overall the Tribunal gives significant weight to the fact that the applicant has not been able to secure sponsored employment with an approved sponsor, to work in a skilled occupation, as the subject of an approved nomination, since his sponsored employment was terminated in July 2016. It accepts that the applicant has established a company with the intention of that business sponsoring his Subclass 457 visa. However the Tribunal notes his visa expires in 4 months and it has concerns as to whether his new business will be in a position to sponsor the applicant in the foreseeable future. It accepts the applicant has debts but it is of the view the debts accrued so far are not the consequence of a visa cancellation. While it appreciates why the applicant wishes to remain in Australia to work, given his family’s dependence on his income, it is not satisfied a visa cancellation would be the cause of further financial hardship. It is of the view the financial hardship is a consequence of the applicant not being able to secure sponsored employment. The Tribunal accepts that the ground for cancellation arose because the applicant’s sponsored employment ceased. This was after the applicant was warned by his sponsor that if he continued to be absent his employment would be terminated. He claims that the sponsor agreed to his continued absence however he does not have evidence of this because it was discussed over the phone. In any case it appears the sponsor’s business may have closed down. While the Tribunal takes into account the Department’s record that it has no concerns regarding his conduct, the Tribunal is concerned the applicant would continue to breach condition 8107 for this visa’s duration if it is not cancelled because he is not in sponsored employment. The Tribunal is satisfied that no international obligations would be breached as a result of a visa cancellation. The applicant holds a Bridging visa E so he will not be detained as a consequence of a visa cancellation so long as he departs Australia before that visa expires. It is also satisfied that the applicant will be able to apply for another Subclass 457 offshore if the business is established and approved as a standard business sponsor.

11. Considering the circumstances as a whole, the Tribunal concludes that the visa should be cancelled.

    DECISION

12. The Tribunal affirms the decision to cancel the applicant’s Subclass 457 (Temporary Work (Skilled)) visa.

    Denise Connolly
    Member