Mandurino (Migration)
Case
•
[2021] AATA 1205
•12 March 2021
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Mandurino (Migration) [2021] AATA 1205
[2021] AATA 1205
12 March 2021
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The Administrative Appeals Tribunal considered the case of Mandurino, who sought review of a decision to cancel her Student (Temporary) (Class TU) visa, subclass 482, also known as a Temporary Skill Shortage visa. The cancellation was based on the applicant's employment ceasing for over 60 days.
The Tribunal was required to determine whether to exercise its discretion to set aside the cancellation decision. This involved considering various factors, including the purpose of the applicant's stay in Australia, her compliance with visa conditions, the degree of hardship that cancellation might cause, and the circumstances in which the ground for cancellation arose. The Tribunal also had regard to the Department's Procedures Advice Manual, which provides guidance on general visa cancellation powers.
The Tribunal reasoned that the applicant, a qualified hairdresser with extensive experience, had lost her employment due to the COVID-19 pandemic, a circumstance beyond her control. She had actively sought new employment and a new sponsor, highlighting the severity of the pandemic in Italy and her potential for unemployment if she returned. The Tribunal also noted that while the applicant had breached a visa condition by ceasing employment, she had not breached any conditions of her current Bridging Visa E. Significant weight was given to the financial and emotional hardship the applicant would face if her visa were cancelled, particularly in light of the pandemic's impact on her savings and the general economic situation in Italy. The Tribunal considered that the ground for cancellation arose from circumstances beyond the applicant's control, a factor that generally weighs against cancellation.
Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the decision to cancel the applicant's visa.
The Tribunal was required to determine whether to exercise its discretion to set aside the cancellation decision. This involved considering various factors, including the purpose of the applicant's stay in Australia, her compliance with visa conditions, the degree of hardship that cancellation might cause, and the circumstances in which the ground for cancellation arose. The Tribunal also had regard to the Department's Procedures Advice Manual, which provides guidance on general visa cancellation powers.
The Tribunal reasoned that the applicant, a qualified hairdresser with extensive experience, had lost her employment due to the COVID-19 pandemic, a circumstance beyond her control. She had actively sought new employment and a new sponsor, highlighting the severity of the pandemic in Italy and her potential for unemployment if she returned. The Tribunal also noted that while the applicant had breached a visa condition by ceasing employment, she had not breached any conditions of her current Bridging Visa E. Significant weight was given to the financial and emotional hardship the applicant would face if her visa were cancelled, particularly in light of the pandemic's impact on her savings and the general economic situation in Italy. The Tribunal considered that the ground for cancellation arose from circumstances beyond the applicant's control, a factor that generally weighs against cancellation.
Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the decision to cancel the applicant's visa.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Immigration
-
Administrative Law
Legal Concepts
-
Judicial Review
-
Procedural Fairness
-
Remedies
-
Statutory Construction
-
Natural Justice
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Citations
Mandurino (Migration) [2021] AATA 1205
Cases Citing This Decision
0
Cases Cited
2
Statutory Material Cited
0
Lafu v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship
[2009] FCAFC 140
Wan v MIMA
[2001] FCA 188