Maaz (Migration)

This matter concerned an application for review of a decision by a delegate of the Minister for Home Affairs to cancel the applicant, Mr Muhammad Maaz's, Subclass 020 (Bridging B) visa. Mr Maaz, a Pakistani national, had been in Australia since 2008, holding various student and bridging visas. He had married an Australian citizen and applied for a Partner visa, which remained undetermined. The cancellation was based on Mr Maaz being charged with family violence related criminal offences, leading the delegate to believe his presence in Australia posed a risk to his wife's health or safety.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the ground for cancellation under s.116(1)(e)(ii) of the Migration Act 1958 was made out, and if so, whether the visa should be cancelled. This involved determining if Mr Maaz's presence in Australia was, or might be, a risk to the health or safety of an individual. If this ground was established, the Tribunal then had to consider whether to exercise its discretion to cancel the visa, taking into account all relevant circumstances.

The Tribunal found that the ground for cancellation under s.116(1)(e)(ii) was satisfied. This was based on the applicant having been charged with offences including property damage, common assault, using a carriage service to menace, harass or offend, assault occasioning actual bodily harm, and breaching a family violence intervention order. Despite the applicant's intention to plead not guilty to most charges, the Tribunal accepted that the intervention order, which prevented contact with his wife, reflected a risk. The Tribunal also considered the applicant's compelling reason to remain in Australia, which was to stay with his wife and support her health issues, but found this was not sufficiently compelling given the intervention order and the pending Partner visa application.

Ultimately, the Tribunal affirmed the delegate's decision to cancel Mr Maaz's Bridging B visa. While acknowledging the applicant's visa and study history, marriage, and plans for the future, the Tribunal concluded that the existence of the criminal charges and the intervention order established the ground for cancellation. Furthermore, the Tribunal determined that there was no compelling reason for Mr Maaz to remain in Australia, and therefore, the discretion to cancel the visa was exercised.