Maazuddin (Migration) - [2025] ARTA 1470

MAAZUDDIN (MIGRATION) [2025] ARTA 1470 (1 AUGUST 2025)
DECISION AND
REASONS FOR DECISION
Applicant:Mr Mohammed Maazuddin
Respondent: Minister for Immigration and Citizenship
Tribunal Number: 2504642

Tribunal:General Member P Hunter
Place:Sydney
Date: 1 August 2025
Decision:The Tribunal sets aside the decision under review and substitutes a decision not to cancel the applicant’s Subclass 500 (Student) visa.

Statement made on 01 August 2025 at 10:57am
CATCHWORDS
MIGRATION – cancellation – Student (Temporary) (Class TU) visa – Subclass 500 (Student) – Federal Circuit and Family Court remittal – non-compliance with condition of visa – enrolled in lower-level course in different subject area, with intention to progress to original level – discretion to cancel visa – poor academic progress in previous higher-level courses – passage of time, expense, several applications for study rights and current letter of offer at original level – parents’ health and financial support – decision under review set aside
LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958 (Cth), s 116(1)(b), (1A)
Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth), r 1.43A(2)(d), Schedule 8, condition 8202(2)(b)
STATEMENT OF REASONS
APPLICATION FOR REVIEW

This is an application for review of a decision dated 3 December 2019 made by a delegate of the Minister to cancel the applicant’s Subclass 500 (Student) visa under s 116(1)(b) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (the Act).
The delegate cancelled the visa on the basis that he had not complied with a condition of his visa. The issue in the present case is whether that ground for cancellation is made out, and if so, whether the visa should be cancelled.
For the following reasons, the Tribunal has concluded that the decision to cancel the applicant's visa should be set aside. .
CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE
Under s 116(1)(b) of the Act, the Minister may cancel a visa if he or she is satisfied that a visa holder has not complied with a condition of the visa. However, the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth) (the Regulations) may prescribe circumstances in which a visa is not to, or must, be cancelled: s 116(2) and (3). Further, the Regulations may prescribe matters to which the Minister must, must not, or may, have regard in determining whether a ground for cancellation is made out under s 116(1), (1AA), (1AB) or (1AC), and the weight to be given to such a matter: s 116(1A).
If satisfied that the ground for cancellation is made out, and any circumstances prescribed under s 116(2) or (3) are not applicable, the decision maker must proceed to consider whether the visa should be cancelled. In determining whether the visa should be cancelled, the decision-maker must have regard to all relevant circumstances, which may include matters prescribed under s 116(1A) and other matters of government policy.
Procedural history and material before the Tribunal
The applicant is a 32 year old male citizen of Pakistan. He was granted a student visa on 4 June 2018 which was valid until 14 October 2020.
On 25 October 2019, the Department sent to the applicant a Notice of Intention to Consider Cancellation (NOICC). The applicant was advised that his visa was granted in relation to his enrolment in a Bachelor of Community Services, which would provide a Level 7 (bachelor degree) qualification from the Australian Qualifications Framework (AQF). Information available to the Department in the Provider Registration and International Student Management System (PRISMS) records indicated that on 21 June 2018 his enrolment in the bachelor course was cancelled by his education provider. PRISMS further indicated that he held an enrolment in a Diploma of Automotive Technology, which was at the AQF Level 5. The applicant was advised that this may be a breach of condition 8202(2)(b) of his visa and it may form a ground for cancellation of his visa. The applicant was invited to provide comment to the Department.
On 15 November 2019, the representative of the applicant submitted to the Department the following:
·A Confirmation of Enrolment (CoE) in a Certificate IV in Automotive Mechanical Diagnosis at Acumen Education with course dates from 28 September 2019 to 24 January 2020, created on 23 February 2019
·A CoE in a Diploma of Automotive Technology at Acumen Education, with course dates from 3 February 2020 to 7 September 2020, created on 23 February 2019.
·A statement of results issued by Acknowledge Education in the Bachelor of Community Services, dated 4 November 2019
·A certificate from Acumen Education, certifying that the applicant has fulfilled the requirements of a the Certificate III in Light Vehicle Mechanical Technology, issued 28 September 2019.
·A statement of attainment in the Certificate III in Light Vehicle Mechanical Technology.
·A course completion letter from Acumen Education in the Certificate III in Light Vehicle Mechanical Technology
·Letter of reference from Siraj Mohammed of A-1 Automotive Diagnostics & Repairs
·Email dated 6 September 2017, final warning from the Academic Manager of Acknowledge Education
·Copy of the applicant’s passport.
In his letter of submission the applicant set out the following information (in summary):
i.He commenced his Bachelor of Business course on 20 March 2017, and he did two semesters in 2017, but he only passed one subject. Despite his hard work he could not perform well and he was issued with a warning due to poor academic progress. He was advised to change to a Bachelor of Community Services.
ii.He started the Bachelor of Community Services in January 2018, however he failed all the subjects in his first semester. Again, he was issued with a warning for poor academic progress but this time he did not have any options. He was very disappointed and could not share the outcome with his parents as he was afraid.
iii.After discussing with friends, he decided to pursue and automotive course as he always had a passion for automobiles growing up.
iv.He could not get admission into an automotive bachelor’s course but he was determined to pursue the field of study. He came up with a strategy of a Certificate III, VI followed by a Diploma to get a better understanding and then pursue a bachelors of automotive study. He was admitted to Acumen Education. He had completed the Certificate III and was now studying the Certificate IV in Automotive Mechanical Diagnosis.
v.Since childhood he had performed well academically, so the initial failure in his bachelor studies was a huge setback mentally and academically. It took him some time to recoup and understand the system. It is difficult for international students to settle into life in Australia.
vi.His family have sacrificed and invested a lot of money in his education. If his visa is cancelled he cannot complete his course, and his would have to leave without a degree. This would affect his personal life and family. His parents have a lot of health issues and for him to return without a degree would be detrimental to their health.
vii.Now he has regained his confidence, he is performing well at his course and he will complete his Certificate IV, the Diploma and then progress to a Bachelors course.
The delegate was satisfied with the material before them the grounds for cancellation under s 116(1)(b) of the Act were made out. The delegate considered the submissions of the applicant, however they found that the particular circumstances favoured the exercise of the discretion to cancel, and on 3 December 2019, determined to cancel the visa.
The applicant applied for a review of the decision of the delegate to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) on 5 December 2019, and provided a copy of the decision record of the delegate.
The applicant attended a hearing before the AAT by telephone on 27 March 2020, to give evidence and present arguments. The applicant was represented in relation to the review and his representative also attended the hearing.
On 30 March 2020, the AAT affirmed the decision to cancel the applicant’s visa.
On 7 May 2020, the applicant appeal to the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia.
On 10 December 2024, the applicant was granted an extension of time to file his appeal and a writ of certiorari was issued to quash the decision of the AAT on 30 March 2020.
On 14 October 2024, the AAT became the Administrative Review Tribunal (the Tribunal) and a writ of mandamus was issued requiring the Tribunal to redetermine the matter according to law. Under the transitional provisions in the Administrative Review Tribunal (Consequential and Transitional Provisions No. 1) Act 2024 (the Transitional Act), applications for review to the AAT that were not finalised before 14 October 2024 are taken to be an application for review to the Tribunal. The Transitional Act gives the Tribunal the authority to continue and finalise any aspect of the review not already completed by the AAT. This decision and statement of reasons is made by the Tribunal.
The applicant was invited to attend a hearing before the Tribunal on 19 June 2025 to give evidence and present arguments via MS Teams video.
On 12 June 2025, the representative of the applicant requested that the hearing be postponed as he was unable to attend. The Tribunal consented to the request and rescheduled the hearing to 11 July 2025.
On 11 July 2025, the Tribunal received the following documents:
·    Submissions from the applicant’s representative
·    A copy of a visa grant notice issued to the applicant on 12 March 2020, and record of assessment by the delegate.
·    A letter of offer to the applicant for enrolment in a Bachelor of Business (Accounting) with course dates from 20 October 2025 to 15 October 2028 at Polytechnic Institute Australia.
·    A letter of offer to the applicant dated 21 January 2020, in an Advanced Diploma of Leadership and Management, with course dates from 19 February 2020 to 16 February 2021, at the Imperial College of Australia.
In their submissions, the representative of the applicant set out the following further relevant information (in summary):
i.Although the applicant commenced his bachelor studies in 2017, he had difficulties with the course, he realised that the course of study that he had planned at the bachelor level was not a good fit for him as he had only past one subject.
ii.After consultations with friends and others, he was admitted to a program of courses in automotive studies. At this time he was unable to gain admission into a Bachelor of Automotive studies due to his recent issues with the Bachelor of Business course.
iii.Following the cancellation of his visa, the applicant has made multiple unsuccessful applications to have study rights added to his bridging visa. This has prevented him from engaging in studies while awaiting review, and is a circumstance beyond the control of the applicant. It has also created significant difficulty for the applicant in obtaining approval to study from educational institutions.
iv.The applicant wishes to continue his studies in Australia. He has been issued an offer in a Bachelor of Business at Polytechnic Institute Australia. His original visa was expired on 14 October 2020, and if the decision was set aside the applicant will have to apply for a new student visa. The evidence of his offer of enrolment at Polytechnic Institute Australia is not only evidence of his commitment to study but also to study at a level compatible with the visa that was cancelled. If the cancellation is revoked the applicant will have to apply for a new student visa.
v.The applicant does not contest that the grounds for cancellation exist under s 116(1)(b) of the Act, due to his decision to move his enrolment from a bachelor program to an automotive trade course.
vi.With the passage of time, the applicant’s English skills have improved and he feels he is now ready to study at the bachelor level in Australia.
vii.The applicant was entitled to a reasonable merits review process. The original decision of the AAT was found to have been affected by jurisdictional error. The applicant has incurred a substantial expense and had to wait several years to seek appropriate review. Matters were made worse by the Department specifically not allowing him to study despite multiple requests. The applicant has consequently experienced a loss of study opportunity and considerable expense.
viii.The applicant has shown substantial efforts to continue his studies in Australia. After years of genuine attempts he hopes to complete his education in Australia, and has been approved in a bachelor level program.
The applicant appeared before the Tribunal to give evidence and present arguments on 11 July 2025, via MS Teams video. He was assisted by his representative who also provided submissions to the Tribunal.
Does the ground for cancellation exist?
A visa may be cancelled under s 116(1)(b) if the Minister is satisfied that the holder has not complied with a condition of their visa. In this instance condition 8202 was attached to the applicant’s visa. The issue in the present case is whether the applicant, as the holder of a student visa, has breached condition 8202 of Schedule 8 the Regulations.
Did the applicant comply with Condition 8202?
Condition 8202, as it applies in this case, is set out in the attachment to this decision. Relevantly, it requires that the applicant:
·be enrolled in a full time registered course: 8202(2)(a)
·maintain enrolment in a registered course that will provide a qualification from the Australian Qualification Framework (AQF)that is at the same level as, or at a higher level than, the course in relation to which the visa was granted: 8202(2)(b)
·has not been certified by his or her education provider, as not achieving satisfactory course progress as specified: 8202(2)(c)(i), and
·has not been certified by his or her education provider, as not achieving satisfactory course attendance as specified: 8202(2)(c)(ii).
In the present case, the applicant’s visa was cancelled on the basis the applicant did not maintain enrolment in a registered course that, once completed, will provide a qualification from the AQF that is at the same level as, or at a higher level than, the registered course in relation to which the visa was granted.
The AQF is the policy for regulated qualifications in the Australian education and training system. It is monitored and maintained by the Commonwealth Department of Education and Training, in consultation with the states and territories. It is made up of 10 levels as follows: 1 – Certificate I; 2 – Certificate II; 3 – Certificate III; 4 – Certificate IV; 5 – Diploma; 6 – Advanced Diploma, Associate Degree; 7 – Bachelor Degree; 8 – Bachelor Honours Degree, Graduate Certificate, Graduate Diploma; 9 – Masters Degree; 10 – Doctoral Degree.
In the particular instance, the applicant was granted his visa on 4 June 2018, on the basis of enrolment in a Bachelor of Community Services, a qualification at the AQF level 8. The applicant does not dispute that he stopped studying the Bachelor of Community Services in 2018, and from 18 September 2018, commenced a package of automotive studies. These studies commenced with the Certificate III in Light Vehicle Mechanical Technology, and the applicant progressed to a Certificate IV level study, and ultimately the program of study concluded with a Diploma of Automotive Technology. The final course of the applicant rising only to an AQF level 5.
The applicant, by way of submissions received from his representative, has not disputed that he was in breach of condition 8202(b) of his visa. At the hearing, the applicant told the Tribunal that he now understood that his change in study pathway was a breach of his visa condition. He confirmed that he did not notify the Department of his change in enrolment and he said he was not aware of any need to change his visa condition at the time.
Considering the totality of the material before it, which includes the applicant’s PRISMS records as set out in the decision record of the delegate, the response of the applicant to the NOICC, and the evidence of enrolments he submitted, he submissions of his representative and the evidence of the applicant at hearing, the Tribunal is satisfied that between June 2018 and September 2018, the applicant dropped his highest level of enrolment from a bachelor’s course at the AQF level 8 to a diploma course at the AQF level 5. Accordingly, the applicant had not maintained enrolment in a registered course that, once completed, will provide a qualification from the AQF that is at the same level as, or at a higher level than, the registered course in relation to which the visa was granted. The Tribunal finds that the applicant did not comply with condition 8202(2)(b) of his visa. Further, that this non-compliance persisted up until the cancellation of the applicant’s visa by the Department on 3 December 2019.
It follows that the Tribunal is satisfied that the ground for cancellation in s 116(1)(b) exists.
Consideration of discretion
Having found that the applicant has not complied with a condition of the visa, as this 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. For temporary visas other than criminal justice and enforcement visas, there are prescribed matters to which the decision-maker must have regard in determining whether they are satisfied as mentioned in s 116(1)(b): s 116(1A) and reg 2.43A of the Regulations. The prescribed matters are set out in the attachment to this decision.
For temporary visas other than bridging, criminal justice and enforcement visas subject to a ‘restricted work condition’, the decision-maker is not to cancel the visa under s 116(1)(b) of the Act if prescribed circumstances exist: s 116(2) and reg 2.43B of the Regulations. These prescribed matters relate to circumstances where there is a written certification by a ‘certifying entity’ in relation to the visa holder in respect of a ‘workplace exploitation matter’. In the absence of evidence that the applicant has been involved in a ‘workplace exploitation matter’ as prescribed in regs 2.43A((2)(a) and (b) they are mostly not relevant to the Tribunal’s assessment in this particular matter. However, reg 2.43A(2)(d) still operates.
Reg 2.43A(2)(d) Whether there is any evidence that the visa holder is not complying, or is no longer seeking to comply with the purpose of the visa
The evidence in the present case is that the applicant did not comply with condition 8202(2)(b) from June 2018 up until the visa was cancelled in December 2019. The purpose of the visa was so that the applicant could obtain an AQF level 8 qualification. Consequently, there is evidence that in the past the applicant did not comply with the purpose of the visa.
As to his future intention, the applicant has maintained action for a review of the cancellation decision for over five years. He has made several applications for study rights to be granted with his bridging visa in order that he may continue his studies during this period. He has presented to the Tribunal evidence of a future enrolment in a bachelor course, at the AQF level 8. It further notes the claims of the applicant that his English has improved significantly which was a barrier to his successful study at this level in the past. The Tribunal accepts that the applicant intends to comply with the purpose of the visa in the future.
This factor, in the assessment of the Tribunal, weighs against the exercise of the discretion to cancel the visa.
Beyond the matters prescribed under reg 2.43A, the Tribunal has had regard to the circumstances of this case, including matters raised by the applicant, and matters in the Department’s policy guidelines ‘General visa cancellation powers’ (s 109, s 116, s 128, s 134B and s 140)’, which refers to matters such as the consequences of cancelling the visa, international obligations and any other relevant matters.

As to the circumstances which gave rise to the visa cancellation, the applicant claims that it was an innocent mistake. His evidence is that he unsuccessfully attempted on two occasions to undertake a bachelor level course since he arrived in Australia. On both occasions he was unable to pass his course subjects. It was not the case that the applicant did not commence his courses, he has presented evidence that he attempted relevant studies. The Tribunal accepts his submission that he was warned by his education provider that his enrolment was under review due to lack of academic progress. He took some advice from friends and he decided to try automotive studies. At the time, the applicant told the Tribunal, his father was also suffering from some health problems and he was conscious of the financial burden of his studies on his parents. When he approached an agent for assistance he was not informed that it may be a breach of his student visa to drop to a lower AQF level of study. Had he been aware he would have packaged his courses appropriately. His evidence to the Tribunal was that it was not mentioned to him that he would potentially have to apply for a new student visa. He claimed that he was not aware that it was condition of his visa that he maintain enrolment at the same AQF level. His agent had always handled his visa applications in the past and the conditions were not explained to him. The Tribunal accepts that the applicant did not knowingly breach his visa condition. It acknowledges his claims about reliance on his former agent, however it is incumbent upon the applicant to ensure that he is aware of the conditions of his permitted stay in Australia. The Tribunal is not satisfied that the circumstances of the breach arose due to conditions outside the control of the applicant and it is considered that this factor weighs in favour of the exercise of the discretion to cancel the visa.
The applicant claimed that he had a compelling need to remain in Australia to complete his education. He claimed that his family and invested a considerable amount of money to enable him to improve his future career prospects with an international education. The applicant said that his elder brother had not stepped up to support their family, and it he believed that the responsibility now fell to him. He claimed that he needed to provide for his whole family and he could not do this without a quality education. The applicant told the Tribunal that his Certificate III in Automotive studies was not sufficient for him to build a career in India. He did not think that he could resume relevant studies in his home country, given the time which has elapsed. Further, he argued that such qualifications would not be as highly regarded. The Tribunal has considered the arguments of the applicant and assesses that this factor weighs against the exercise of the discretion to cancel the visa.
In addition to the matters raised above in relation to the applicant’s compelling need to remain in Australia, the applicant told the Tribunal that financially, mentally and emotionally the cancellation had been extremely difficult. Although, when asked by the Tribunal he conceded that he had not been diagnosed with any mental health condition, and he had not sought treatment for any condition. Yet, he described the visa cancellation as one of the biggest failures of his life and he said that if he had to return to India without a degree it would severely impact his career prospects and be socially devastating for him and his family. He claimed that he and his family would lose face and he did not know how he would manage this mentally and emotionally. He had only disclosed his visa cancellation to his immediate family and some close friends. He told the Tribunal that he has been really embarrassed by the circumstances. In addition, to the family responsibilities that he claims he has to assume, the applicant told the Tribunal that he had now become engaged. His fiancé was also from India and in Australia on a student visa. If he was unable to complete his studies the applicant was afraid that their relationship would not endure. He claimed that he would not be a desirable marriage prospect without qualifications. The Tribunal accepts that the applicant, his family and his partner would experience emotional and financial hardship if his visa was to remain cancelled. The Tribunal also accepts that the time and expense of pursuing a review of the visa cancellation has put the applicant’s life on hold and created further financial hardship. It is considered that this factor weighs against the exercise of the discretion to cancel the visa.
Other than the non-compliance with condition 8202(2)(b), there is no material before the Tribunal that indicates that the applicant has not complied with other visa conditions. While the holder of a student visa he did maintain enrolment. The applicant claimed that he had otherwise complied with conditions. There is also no evidence that the applicant has been uncooperative with the Department. The Tribunal attributes weight in favour of the applicant in relation to both these factors and against the exercise of the discretion to cancel.
The applicant has no dependent family members included with his relevant visa. There will be no consequential cancellations if his visa is to remain cancelled and the Tribunal attributes no weight to this factor.
There are legal consequences that may apply in the case of visa cancellations. These include restrictions on obtaining a further visa, particularly if the visa remained cancelled the applicant may be subject to a restriction under s 48 of the Act which would limit further visa applications while the applicant remained onshore. Further, due to the operation of PIC 4012, the applicant may also be unable to be granted further visas to Australia offshore for three years from the date of cancellation. While three years has already passed since the initial cancellation decision, the Tribunal accepts that a cancellation remaining on the record of the applicant might otherwise impact upon his further visa options, however this is the intended and legitimate consequence of a visa cancellation. The applicant further confirmed at hearing that if the visa remained cancelled and he had exhausted all his legitimate options of review se would abide by the lawful direction of the Department to depart. Consequently, the Tribunal is satisfied that the possibility of the applicant being detained is remote. The Tribunal is not satisfied that this factor weighs in favour of the applicant and gives this factor neutral weight.
As a citizen of India, the applicant made no claims that any international obligations would be breached by the cancellation of his visa. He told the Tribunal his greatest fear was to return to India as a failure without completing his study. Otherwise he had no fears of harm on return which may give rise to any non-refoulement obligations. The applicant also has no children, and did not identify to the Tribunal any children, whose interests would be affected if his visa was to remain cancelled. The Tribunal gives these factors no weight either in favour of against the exercise of the discretion to cancel the visa.
As to other matters, the Tribunal acknowledges the submission of the applicant’s representative that if successful the applicant would not have his visa reinstated, as the duration of the relevant visa has now expired. The applicant would be required to apply for a fresh visa, another student visa in the particular circumstances, and be required to satisfy all the relevant criteria for that future visa. That outcome remains uncertain and on review the applicant is no longer seeking to have his visa reinstated but the opportunity to apply for a new visa. The Tribunal considers that this factor has a little weight against the exercise of the discretion to cancel the visa.
The Tribunal has also considered other submissions about the time and monies spent by the applicant in relation to the review. It has allowed some weight for this factor under its consideration of the hardship to the applicant if the visa was to remain cancelled. It does not consider that further weight should be attributed to the fact that the applicant was successful on judicial review. It is not the case that the breach of condition 8202(2)(b) by the applicant was not made out, nor that the circumstances in which the breach arose was outside his control. The determination to exercise the power to cancel is an exercise of discretion. The relevant factors presented to in relation to the exercise have not remained static, and minds may differ as to the weight attributed to those factors over the passage of time.
Conclusion
Considering the circumstances as a whole, the Tribunal finds that there are a number of matters that collectively weigh heavily against the exercise of the discretion to cancel the visa. Particularly, the applicant’s intention to comply with the purpose of the visa, his compelling need to remain in Australia, the hardship that may be caused and his compliance with other visa conditions and cooperation with the Department. The Tribunal therefore finds that the visa should not be cancelled.
DECISION
The Tribunal sets aside the decision under review and substitutes a decision not to cancel the applicant’s Subclass 500 (Student) visa.
Date(s) of hearing:  11 July 2025
Representative for the Applicant:           Mr Mark Edward Northam
ATTACHMENT – Extract from Schedule 8 to the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth)
…
Schedule 8
8202(1)      The holder must be enrolled in a full time course of study or training if the holder is:
(a)     a Defence student; or
(b)     a Foreign Affairs student; or
(c)      a secondary exchange student.
(2)A holder not covered by subclause (1):
(a)     must be enrolled in a full time registered course; and
(b)     subject to subclause (3), must maintain enrolment in a registered course that, once completed, will provide a qualification from the Australian Qualifications Framework that is at the same level as, or at a higher level than, the registered course in relation to which the visa was granted; and
(c)      must ensure that neither of the following subparagraphs applies in respect of a registered course undertaken by the holder:
(i)the education provider has certified the holder, for a registered course undertaken by the holder, as not achieving satisfactory course progress for section 19 of the Education Services for Overseas Students Act 2000 and the relevant standard of the national code made by the Education Minister under section 33 of that Act;
(ii)the education provider has certified the holder, for a registered course undertaken by the holder, as not achieving satisfactory course attendance for section 19 of the Education Services for Overseas Students Act 2000 and the relevant standard of the national code made by the Education Minister under section 33 of that Act.
(3)A holder is taken to satisfy the requirement set out in paragraph (2)(b) if the holder:
(a)     is enrolled in a course at the Australian Qualifications Framework level 10; and
(b)     changes their enrolment to a course at the Australian Qualifications Framework level 9.

ATTACHMENT – Extract from reg 2.43A to the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth)
2.43AMinister must have regard to certain matters in considering cancellation of certain temporary visas for breach of visa condition
(1)This regulation applies in relation to a visa if:
(a)     the visa is a temporary visa other than:
(i)a criminal justice visa; or
(ii)an enforcement visa; and
(b)     the Minister is satisfied that the visa holder has not complied with a particular condition (the relevant condition) to which the holder’s visa is subject; and
(c)      regulation 2.43B does not apply in relation to the visa.
(2)For the purposes of paragraph 116(1A)(a) of the Act, the Minister must have regard to the following matters in determining whether the Minister is satisfied as mentioned in paragraph 116(1)(b) of the Act:
(a)     any written certificate issued by a certifying entity that is a government entity if the certificate:
(i)was issued in relation to the visa holder in respect of a workplace exploitation matter; and
(ii)sets out the matters agreed to by Immigration and the government entity;
(b)     any written certificate issued by a certifying entity that is not a government entity and that states that the entity considers that:
(i)there is prima facie evidence that the visa holder has been affected by a workplace exploitation matter; and
(ii)if any law limits the time within which a proceeding may be instituted, or a complaint made, in relation to the workplace exploitation matter—that time has not expired; and
(iii)there is a connection between the circumstances relating to the breach of the relevant condition and the workplace exploitation matter by which the visa holder has been affected;
(c)      whether there is a connection between the circumstances relating to the breach of the relevant condition and the workplace exploitation matter to which a certificate mentioned in paragraph (a) or (b) relates;
(d)     whether there is any evidence that the visa holder was not complying, or is no longer seeking to comply, with the purpose of the visa;
(e)      whether the visa holder has committed, in writing, to do both of the following:
(i)to take action, in a timely manner, to resolve the workplace exploitation matter to which a certificate mentioned in paragraph (a) or (b) relates;
(ii)to comply in future with the visa conditions to which the holder’s visa is subject;
(f)      whether the visa holder has failed to comply with a commitment of a kind mentioned in paragraph (e) of this subregulation, or paragraph 2.43B(2)(d), (3)(d) or (4)(d), that the visa holder has previously given in relation to the visa.
(3)Subregulation (2) does not limit, or otherwise affect, a power or duty of the Minister to cancel the visa under:
(a)     paragraph 116(1)(b) of the Act for non compliance with a condition (other than the relevant condition) to which the visa holder’s visa is subject; or
(b)     a provision other than paragraph 116(1)(b) of the Act.
Note:For example, see subregulation 2.43(2) for the circumstances in which the Minister must cancel a visa.