Mathew (Migration)

This matter concerned the Administrative Appeals Tribunal's review of a decision to cancel a Subclass 482 (Temporary Skill Shortage) visa held by an applicant sponsored by Sapala Foods Pty Ltd. The cancellation was based on the ground that the applicant's approved standard business sponsorship had been cancelled by the Department. This cancellation of sponsorship arose from a finding that Sapala Foods Pty Ltd had provided false and misleading information to the Department, which also resulted in the business being barred from making future sponsorship applications.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the ground for visa cancellation under s 116(1)(g) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) was established. This required the Tribunal to determine if the cancellation of the business sponsorship, a prescribed ground for visa cancellation under r 2.43(1)(l)(iv) of the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth), was valid. The Tribunal also had to consider its jurisdiction concerning other applicants mentioned in the case.

The Tribunal reasoned that the validity of the sponsorship cancellation was a prerequisite for the visa cancellation. It noted that Sapala Foods Pty Ltd had sought merits review of the sponsorship cancellation and the associated bar from future applications. In a prior decision, the Tribunal had found that the circumstances for cancelling the sponsorship under s 140L(1)(a) of the Act did not exist and that the power to take action under s 140M did not arise. Consequently, that prior decision set aside the cancellation of the sponsorship. Applying this finding, the Tribunal concluded that the ground for cancelling the applicant's visa under s 116(1)(g) was not made out, as the underlying sponsorship cancellation was invalid.

Accordingly, the Tribunal set aside the decision to cancel the first applicant's Subclass 482 visa and substituted a decision not to cancel it. The Tribunal also stated that it had no jurisdiction with respect to the other applicants.