Ouriaghli Zefzafi (Migration)

This matter concerned an appeal by Ouriaghli Zefzafi against the cancellation of his Working Holiday (Temporary) (Class TZ) visa, Subclass 417. The Minister had cancelled the visa under section 116 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth), specifically relying on the ground set out in section 116(1)(g). The applicant, a Belgian national, arrived in Australia on 30 October 2023 and had been working as a roofer. A preliminary issue involved a certificate restricting the disclosure of certain information in the Departmental file, which the Tribunal found to be valid but not relevant to the cancellation decision.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the ground for cancellation under section 116(1)(g) of the Act was established, and if so, whether the discretion to cancel the visa should be exercised. The Tribunal was required to consider all relevant circumstances, including government policy, the applicant's personal circumstances, his compliance with visa conditions, and the nature of the offences that led to the cancellation consideration. The applicant's representative argued that the offences were not severe enough to warrant cancellation and that the applicant had otherwise complied with his visa conditions and had strong community ties.

The Tribunal found that the ground for cancellation under section 116(1)(g) was satisfied. In exercising its discretion regarding cancellation, the Tribunal acknowledged the applicant's cooperation with the Department, his general compliance with visa conditions, and the support from his employer. However, the Tribunal weighed these factors against other considerations. It noted that the applicant had not made concrete plans for his future in Australia beyond his working holiday visa and had not made significant inquiries about obtaining a student visa. The Tribunal also distinguished the applicant's situation from the case law cited by his representative, finding those precedents not analogous to the present circumstances.

Ultimately, the Tribunal concluded that the visa should be cancelled. Despite accepting that the applicant had been a hardworking employee and had not committed criminal offences in Belgium, the Tribunal found that other factors weighed heavily in favour of cancellation. The Tribunal ordered that the cancellation of the applicant's visa be affirmed.