Muteke (Migration)

[2020] AATA 3268

Muteke (Migration) [2020] AATA 3268 (15 June 2020)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

APPLICANT:  Mr Munyaradzi Muteke

CASE NUMBER:  1924633

HOME AFFAIRS REFERENCE(S):          BCC2019/1788400

MEMBER:Bridget Cullen

DATE:15 June 2020

PLACE OF DECISION:  Brisbane

DECISION:The Tribunal sets aside the decision under review and substitutes a decision not to cancel the applicant’s Subclass 573 Higher Education Sector visa.

Statement made on 15 June 2020 at 4:12pm

CATCHWORDS

MIGRATION – cancellation – Student (Temporary) (Class TU) visa – Subclass 573 Higher Education Sector – risk to the health or safety of individuals – applicant charged with an offense – found not guilty of this charge – power to cancel visa does not arise – decision under review set aside    

LEGISLATION

Migration Act 1958, s 116

CASES

Gong v MIBP [2016] FCCA 561
Tien v MIMA (1998) 89 FCR 80   

STATEMENT OF DECISION AND REASONS

APPLICATION FOR REVIEW

1. This is an application for review of a decision dated 23 August 2019 made by a delegate of the Minister for Home Affairs to cancel the applicant’s Subclass 573 Higher Education Sector visa under s.116 of the Migration Act 1958 (the Act).

2. The delegate cancelled the visa under s.116(1)(e) of the Migration Act, on the basis that the applicant was a risk to the health, safety or good order of the health or safety of individuals and did not exercise their discretion not to cancel the 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.

3. The applicant appeared before the Tribunal on 25 February 2020 to give evidence and present arguments.

4. The applicant was represented in relation to the review by his registered migration agent, Ms Lauren Blud of Ramsden Lawyers (MARN 1798989). The representative did not attend the Tribunal hearing.

5. 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

6. Under s.116 of the Act, the Minister may cancel a visa if he or she is satisfied that certain grounds specified in that provision are made out. Relevantly, to this case, these include the ground set out in s.116(1)(e). If satisfied that the ground for cancellation is made out, the decision maker must proceed to consider whether the visa should be cancelled, having regard to all the relevant circumstances, which may include matters of government policy.

   Does the ground for cancellation exist?

7. A visa may be cancelled under s.116(1)(e) if the Minister is satisfied that the presence of the visa holder in Australia is or may be, or would or might be, a risk to: the health, safety or good order of the Australian community or a segment of the Australian community; or the health or safety of an individual or individuals. There does not have to be, any direct, solid or certain foundation before the power can arise. It can arise on the possibility that some event occurred in the past: Gong v MIBP [2016] FCCA 561, at [41].

8. The expression ‘good order of the Australian community’ is not defined in the Act. Although considering an earlier version of s.116(1)(e), the reasoning in Tien v MIMA (1998) 89 FCR 80 is still relevant. The Court held (at 94) that the term must be construed in the context in which it appears, that is juxtaposed to the words ‘the health, safety’ of the Australian community. That is, it contains a public order element and concerns activities which have an impact on public activities or which manifest themselves in a public way. It requires that there be an element of risk that the person’s presence in Australia might be disruptive to the proper administration or observance of the law or might create difficulties or public disruption in relation to the values, balance and equilibrium of Australian society.

9. The delegate found a ground for cancellation existed because the Department had received information from the authorities that the applicant had been charged with Grievous Bodily Harm on 30 March 2019.

10. On 25 February 2020, the Tribunal received submissions from the applicant’s representatives that the applicant was put on trial by jury in Brisbane. The applicant raised a defence of self-defence. On 12 February 2020, the applicant was found not guilty of this charge, and discharged with no further matters before the court.

11. For these reasons, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the ground for cancellation in s.116(1)(e) exists. It follows that the power to cancel the applicant’s visa does not arise.

    DECISION

12. The Tribunal sets aside the decision under review and substitutes a decision not to cancel the applicant’s Subclass 573 Higher Education Sector visa.

    Bridget Cullen
    Member