Mdallal (Migration)

This matter concerned an application for review of a decision to cancel the applicant's Partner (Temporary) (Class UK) visa, Subclass 820 (Spouse). The applicant, a national of Jordan, had been granted the visa in 2017 based on his marriage to Oula RAAD. The applicant's Partner (Subclass 801) visa application remained undetermined. The applicant had been convicted of criminal offences and imprisoned, leading to the Department of Home Affairs issuing notices of intention to consider cancellation. The applicant responded to these notices, providing various documents including character references and a psychological report, and asserting that his former wife had lied about the circumstances of the offences. The delegate ultimately determined that the grounds for cancellation outweighed the reasons not to cancel, a decision the applicant sought to have reviewed by the Tribunal.

The Tribunal was required to determine whether the grounds for cancelling the applicant's visa, specifically under section 116(1)(g) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth), were made out. If the grounds were established, the Tribunal then had to consider whether, in light of all relevant circumstances, including government policy, the visa should be cancelled. The applicant also raised claims that his former wife had fabricated evidence regarding the offences for which he was convicted.

The Tribunal affirmed the delegate's decision to cancel the visa. It applied section 116 of the Act, which permits the Minister to cancel a visa if satisfied that certain grounds are met. The Tribunal considered the applicant's criminal convictions and imprisonment as a prescribed ground for cancellation. While acknowledging the applicant's submissions regarding the breakdown of his relationship, his need to support children from a previous marriage, economic conditions in his home country, and mental health concerns, the Tribunal found that these factors did not outweigh the grounds for cancellation. The Tribunal also addressed the applicant's claim that his former wife had lied about the circumstances of the offences, noting that the applicant had provided translated text messages to support this assertion. However, after considering all the issues raised, both individually and cumulatively, the Tribunal concluded that the visa cancellation should be affirmed.