Parmvir (Migration)

Parmvir (Migration) [2020] AATA 6048 (9 December 2020)
DECISION RECORD
DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division
APPLICANT:  Mr Parmvir Parmvir
CASE NUMBER:  2004760
DIBP REFERENCE(S):  BCC2020/203001
MEMBER:Denis Dragovic
DATE:9 December 2020
PLACE OF DECISION:  Melbourne
DECISION:The Tribunal sets aside the decision under review and substitutes a decision not to cancel the applicant’s Subclass 010 (Bridging A) visa.

Statement made on 09 December 2020 at 1:18pm
CATCHWORDS
MIGRATION – cancellation – Bridging E (Class WE) visa – Subclass 050 (Bridging (General)) – incorrect information a previous visa application – applicant charged with offenses in India – legal action by his wife’s family for his seeking a divorce – applicant not informed of the charges – charges being settled and quashed – applicant obtained Indian police clearance certificate – arrest warrant re-issued for the applicant – substantial investment in his career – decision under review set aside
LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958, ss 5(1), 97-105, 107-109, 359
Migration Regulations 1994, Schedule 2, cls 050.223, 050.617; r 2.41
CASES
MIAC v Khadgi (2010) 190 FCR 248

Any references appearing in square brackets indicate that information has been omitted from this decision pursuant to section 378 of the Migration Act 1958 and replaced with generic information.
STATEMENT OF DECISION AND REASONS
APPLICATION FOR REVIEW

This is an application for review of a decision made by a delegate of the Minister for Immigration to cancel the applicant’s Subclass 010 (Bridging A) visa under s.109(1) of the Migration Act 1958 (the Act).
The delegate cancelled the applicant’s Bridging visa on the basis that on the application for a temporary graduate visa dated 15 March 2018 the applicant had declared that he had not ‘ever been charged with an offence that is currently awaiting legal action.’ The temporary graduate visa was granted to the applicant on the 9 July 2018. The applicant’s temporary graduate visa naturally expired on the 9 January 2020. He then applied for a further student visa and as the application was pending the applicant was granted a Bridging visa on 9 January 2020. A week later, on the 16 January 2020 the applicant received a notice of intention to consider cancellation of his bridging visa based upon the purportedly incorrect information contained in the temporary graduate visa application. The issue in the present case is whether that ground for cancellation is made out, and if so, whether the visa should be cancelled.
The Tribunal exercised its discretion to hold the hearing by video conference. The hearing was held during the COVID-19 pandemic. The Tribunal determined it was reasonable to hold a hearing by video conference, having regard to the nature of this matter and the individual circumstances of the applicant. The Tribunal also had regard to the Tribunal’s objective of providing a mechanism of review that is fair, just, economical and quick, and the delay to the matter if the hearing was not to be conducted by telephone. The Tribunal is satisfied that the applicant was given a fair opportunity to give evidence and present arguments.
The applicant appeared before the Tribunal on 19 November 2020 to give evidence and present arguments.
The applicant was represented in relation to the review by his registered migration agent.
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
Section 109(1) of the Act allows the Minister to cancel a visa if the visa holder has failed to comply with ss.101, 102, 103, 104, 105 or 107(2) of the Act. Broadly speaking, these sections require non-citizens to provide correct information in their visa applications and passenger cards, not to provide bogus documents and to notify the Department of any incorrect information of which they become aware and of any relevant changes in circumstances.
The exercise of the cancellation power under s.109 of the Act is conditional on the Minister issuing a valid notice to the visa holder under s.107 of the Act, providing particulars of the alleged non-compliance. Where a notice is issued that does not comply with the requirements in s.107, the power to cancel the visa does not arise. Extracts of the Act relevant to this case are attached to this decision.
In the present matter, the Tribunal is satisfied that the delegate had reached the necessary state of mind to engage s.107 and that the notice issued under s.107 complied with the statutory requirements.
Was there non-compliance as described in the s.107 notice?
The issue before the Tribunal is whether there was non-compliance in the way described in the s.107 notice, being the manner particularised in the notice, and if so, whether the visa should be cancelled. The non-compliance identified and particularised in the s.107 notice was non-compliance with s.101(b) which states:
A non-citizen must fill in or complete his or her application form in such a way that:
(a) all questions on it are answered; and
(b) no incorrect answers are given or provided.
The non-compliance described in the notice and which formed the basis of the decision to cancel the visa began with the description of the relevant information the applicant made:
On 15 March 2018, you made an application for a Temporary Graduate visa. On page seven (7) of the application form, you declared “no” to the following question:
Has any applicant ever been charged with any offence that is currently awaiting legal action?
On page 12 of the application form, you declared “yes” (in-part) to the following declarations:
Warning: Giving false or misleading information or documents is a serious offence. I declare that:
The information provided in this form is complete, correct and up-to-date.
I understand that if any fraudulent documents or false or misleading information has been provided with this application or if I fail to satisfy the Minister of my identity, my application may be refused and I, and any member of my family unit, may become unable to be granted a visa for a specified period of time.
I understand that if documents are found to be fraudulent or information to be incorrect after the grant of a visa, the visa may subsequently be cancelled.
The notice of intention to cancel the visa and subsequent decision notifying the applicant of the cancellation of the visa outlined the information which was before the Department:
Information before the Department indicates that you have been charged with the following offences pursuant to the Indian Penal Code 1856 (IPC). The charges are outlined as follows;
·IPC 354: Assault or criminal force against a women to outrage her modesty;
·IPC 406: Criminal Breach of trust;
·IPC 498: Enticing or taking away or detaining a with criminal intent a married women; and
·IPC 506: Criminal intimidation
In submissions to the Department by the applicant he explained that in January 2017 he travelled to India to attend his wedding. Thereafter he and his wife lived together. He claims that during this period he began to realize that his wife had a major hearing problem which he claimed was diagnosed as being 60% hearing loss. The applicant claimed that he was aggrieved because he had asked his wife on numerous occasions before their wedding whether there were issues that they should know of each other. He said that her loss of hearing was a problem because ‘me or my family members used to call her she never responded and seems like she is not understanding what are we saying so I really felt betrayed that she did not tell me her problem…so I decided to take divorce from her.’ Following that he returned to Australia on the 8 March 2017. He claims that he has not heard from her since then. He explained in the submission that he learned of a complaint of what he called false allegations against him and his parents being lodged with the police on the 29 November 2017. He explained that he was accused of several complaints and so were his parents.
At the hearing the applicant recapped the key dates including that the first instance report (FIR) was lodged on 17 September 2017 and not the 29 November 2017 which he had initially listed but described as a rough date of when his parents would have been notified of the complaint.
At the hearing the applicant explained that after he moved to Australia his wife left his home the next day. In his community it is traditional that after a marriage the wife returns to her parent’s house for about one week, as such, that she returned was not unusual. But in this case, she did not return to the house until November 2017. The applicant claimed that he had explained to his parents and wife that he didn’t want to live with her and that his parents told her as much. The applicant’s wife, nevertheless, expressed a desire to stay in the house. The applicant’s parents, not wanting to live with her, left the house and moved in with relatives and then rented a separate place. The applicant explained that according to Indian law the wife has the right to live in her husband’s house and as such his parents had no choice. The applicant explained that he was and remains married to her as he can’t obtain a divorce because, according to him, Indian law does not allow a divorce without the woman’s agreement.
The applicant explained at the hearing that he only learned of this situation, including that his parents had moved out of the house and been charged, at the end of March 2018. He said that the documentation that he subsequently obtained from his parents shows that he was charged at the same time as his parents but he claimed that his parents had withheld the information from him.
He recalled that he called his parents to talk about his nephew’s birthday when his parents told him for the first time that they wouldn’t be participating in the birthday for the reason that they were facing charges against them and had been forced to move to a new house. He claimed that the nephew’s birthday was on the 23 March. The applicant had submitted his application with the purported incorrect information on the 15 March 2018. The applicant claims that he had spoken to his parents and learned of the charges just after he had applied for the visa. At that stage he claims that his parents told him that he doesn’t have any charges against him because he wasn’t summonsed although he was listed on the documents. The applicant claims that he sought a police clearance certificate to verify this.
He claims that he first learned that he was involved in the court proceedings when his parents told him that a summons would be sent to him in 2019. I asked if he tried to correct the information on the application when he learned this, to which he responded that he did not because the visa was already granted.
The applicant claimed that since the charges were laid against him and his parents there has been a judicial process through the Family Welfare Organisation which he likened to a court that considered the wife’s claims of sexual harassment against the applicant’s father. These charges were dismissed. But the other charges, which for the applicant were “IPC 498-A (For dowry)” and “IPC 506 (Criminal Intimidation)”, continued to be processed through a district court from 2019 through to April 2020 when an agreement was reached with the wife’s family. The outcome he claimed and was supported by documentation submitted to the Tribunal was that the applicant’s parents would make some payments to her and the charges would be dropped.
The applicant submitted documents showing a date for the case to be heard in December which he claimed was for the purpose of the court certifying the settlement.
I explained to the applicant the meaning of s.100 of the Act:
For the purposes of this Subdivision, an answer to a question is incorrect even though the person who gave or provided the answer, or caused the answer to be given or provided, did not know that it was incorrect.
As the applicant has confirmed that there were charges at the time of his application and despite not knowing of them, noting s.100 of the Act, I find that there was non-compliance with s.101 of the Act by the applicant in the way described in the s.107 notice.
Should the visa be cancelled?
As the Tribunal has decided that there was non-compliance in the way described in the notice given to the applicant under s.107 of the Act, it is necessary to consider whether the visa should be cancelled pursuant to s.109(1). Cancellation in this context is discretionary, as there are no mandatory cancellation circumstances prescribed under s.109(2).
In exercising this power, the Tribunal must consider the applicant’s response (if any) to the s.107 notice about the non-compliance, and have regard to any prescribed circumstances: s.109(1)(b) and (c). The prescribed circumstances are set out in r.2.41 of the Regulations and are addressed below:
The correct information
The correct information, as detailed above, is that the applicant had charges pending at the time of the application. That this information is contrary to the information he gave I give some weight in favour of cancelling the applicant’s visa.
The content of the genuine document (if any)
In this instance there is no genuine document and as such I place no weight on this element.
Whether the decision to grant a visa or immigration clear the visa holder was based, wholly or partly, on incorrect information or a bogus document
The decision to grant the applicant the Bridging visa was partly based upon the incorrect information. For this reason, I give some weight in favour of cancelling the applicant’s visa.
The circumstances in which the non-compliance occurred
I note that the applicant applied for his temporary graduate visa on the 15 March 2018, that is several months after the lodgement with the Indian police of his wife’s complaints and the existence of charges against him.
The applicant explained in his written submission, ‘I was in knowledge that I might have some false charges on me but as I told that I did not get any notice, so I was confident that I am clean with no criminal background. Still to get this thing confirmed I applied for Police clearance certificate in India which I received on 13 April 2018.’ The applicant confirmed during the hearing that he was unsure so he sought a police clearance certificate.
A copy of the police clearance certificate was provided to the Department. The certification states, ‘This is to certify that as per the available records, there is nothing adverse against the name of the applicant whose details are stated here; so far as his/her stay in India is concerned, which would have rendered him/her ineligible for grant of travel facilities including visa/immigration/any other service for/in Australia.’ The certificate was issued by the Consulate General of India, Melbourne. From the wording of the police certificate it appears that the clearance certificate only records convictions. This appears to be supported by what the applicant has claimed and that is that he twice sought the police certificate and on both occasions it did not reveal any record against him.
The applicant is claiming that the circumstances of the non-compliance were that his parents withheld information from him and despite his best efforts he did not come to realise that there were charges against him.
I explained that the Departmental file has information which would be a reason for affirming the decision to refuse the applicant a visa and as such I put the information to the applicant under s.359AA. I explained that the information was relevant to the review because
·A Look Out circular was issued by the Indian government against the VH dated April 2018
·Department sighted an Indian government revocation and request to hand in passport [number]
·Email rec’d by Ministers Office on 4 March 2019 appears to show that an arrest warrant was reissued for 12 March 2019, in respect of FIR No 111 – criminal charges
·Further email dated 29 May 2019, appears to show a further arrest warrant was re-issued for 19/04/19. Case was adjourned until 14/6/19.
·As of 23 October 2019, Department check found that there are current charges pending including:
IPC 354: Assault or criminal force against a women to outrage her modesty;
IPC 406: Criminal Breach of trust;
IPC 498: Enticing or taking away or detaining a with criminal intent a married women;
IPC 506: Criminal intimidation.
I explained that this is relevant to the review because it leads to questioning the applicant’s credibility. The applicant requested an adjournment which was granted for fifteen minutes. Upon the resumption of the hearing the applicant explained that the arrest warrant was sent in 2019 and that he wasn’t there to receive it. When he learned about it he sent a power of attorney to deal with the alimony issue to his father. In response to the four charges that I read out to him versus the two that he had declared, he said that some of those matters don’t relate to the husband in Indian law. He is not sure why he wasn’t informed of them and claimed that when he asked his lawyer, they only told him that there are two charges.
I am inclined to believe the applicant as his evidence presented as being credible without any contradictions between earlier statements or facts available from the records accompanying the file. Considering the circumstances, I place some weight against cancelling the applicant’s visa as the situation appears not to have been the fault of the applicant. When he became aware of the situation, he sought to verify the information by way of a police clearance certificate which did not suggest that he was facing the prospect of any criminal charges. Once he was granted the visa that the applicant chose not to update the information is problematic but understandable as it appears that he was attempting to work his way through a settlement.
The present circumstances of the visa holder
The applicant has been in Australia since 2009 variously studying or working. He explained his career ambitions as being a chef and working in the hospitality industry. The applicant is now a certified chef with experience in a restaurant in Sandringham, Melbourne, and Hampton, Melbourne.
The applicant put to the Tribunal that his career trajectory and ambitions have led him towards applying for permanent residency. His intention was to move to one of Victoria’s regional towns to work there.
His career choice is a substantial investment of time. He has worked hard to establish himself on this new pathway in life. For the reason that the applicant has invested substantially in his future which he stands to lose I place substantial weight against the cancellation of the applicant’s visa.
The subsequent behaviour of the visa holder concerning his or her obligations under Subdivision C of Division 3 of Part 2 of the Act
The non-compliance occurred in March 2018. The applicant did not act to inform the Department of the non-compliance despite knowing of the ongoing case due to his family’s engagement with the Family Welfare Organisation, what he described as a social media campaign against him and summons, which he claims he did not personally receive. Despite all of these indications that suggest the applicant would have been aware of the falsity of the information he had provided he did not take action to inform the Department.
The applicant did not report to the Tribunal the changed circumstances even after he had discovered them. This is a breach of s.105(1) which requires that the non-citizen must ‘as soon as practicable, notify an officer in writing of the incorrectness and of the correct answer.’ Subsection (2) adds, ‘Subsection (1) applies despite the grant of any visa’.
Breaching the obligations of a visa holder is not a minor matter, in particular when there is an expectation to correct incorrect information. For this reason, I give some weight in favour of cancelling the applicant’s visa.
Any other instances of non-compliance by the visa holder known to the Minister

There are no other known instances of non-compliance. As this is a minimum expectation of visa applicants and holders, I place limited weight against cancelling the visa.
The time that has elapsed since the non-compliance
The non-compliance occurred in March 2018. That the applicant did not notify the authorities until the Department began cancellation processes is problematic. For this reason, I place some weight in favour of cancelling his visa.
Any breaches of the law since the non-compliance and the seriousness of those breaches
There are no known instances of the applicant breaching the law. As this is a minimum expectation of visa applicants and holders, I place limited weight against cancelling the visa.
Any contribution made by the holder to the community.
The applicant claims that he is working and contributing to Australia through the payment of taxes. I place limited weight on this claimed contribution as it is a consequence of his own personal interests and a requirement of the law that taxes are paid.
Other considerations
While the above factors must be considered, they do not represent an exhaustive statement of the circumstances that might properly be considered to be relevant in any given case: MIAC v Khadgi (2010) 190 FCR 248. The Tribunal may also have regard to lawful government policy. The relevant policy is set out in the Department’s Procedural Advice Manual) PAM3 ‘General visa cancellation powers’, which refers to matters such as the consequences of cancelling the visa, international obligations and any other relevant matters.
I have considered whether the applicant may face detention. The applicant stated at the hearing that he would voluntarily depart Australia. This may lead to temporary detention, which I accept would lead to some harm to his mental health and additional stress. The applicant said that he cannot handle the stress. I place very limited weight against cancelling the applicant’s visa for the reason of the possibility that he may be detained for a short period of time.
There are no consequential cancellations that would arise from the cancellation of the applicant’s visa. In addition, the applicant does not have any children and the applicant does not fear harm from returning to India.
The applicant claimed that his visa’s cancellation and subsequent return to India wouldn’t amount to hardship but nevertheless he explained that he would face challenges with his family arising from his return to India. He explained that he is the only child and that his family wanted him to remain in India, but he wanted to travel abroad and pursue his own ambitions. Despite their objections they funded him as they are middle class. While I accept that there would be some friction between him and his father, I do not consider this to amount to hardship and as such place very minimal weight against cancelling the applicant’s visa.
The applicant said at the hearing that he thought his circumstances unfair considering that that someone could ruin his career for unsubstantiated reasons and that he did not know of them at the time. He emphasised that when applying for the current student visa, he declared the charges as pending. The applicant submitted several statutory declarations from people who have known him supporting his claim that he has not acted in a way as described in the charges laid against him by his ex-wife. Furthermore, the applicant claimed that the case against him was centred on revenge and that he is not guilty of any of the charges. In post hearing submissions the Tribunal received a court order from the High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana At Chandigarh. The order was the final order pertaining to the charges laid against the applicant by his wife. I checked the document’s veracity by going to the High Court’s webpage which provides access to all judgements. The judgement found on the High Court website was the same as what was provided by the applicant. In the judgement it states:
this Court finds that the FIR was in fact an outcome of matrimonial discord which has been resolved amongst the parties amicably, continuation of the instant FIR would not serve any useful purpose. The petition, as such, is as such, is accepted and FIR No.0111 dated 29.11.2017 registered at Police Station Women Police Station, Karnal, District Karnal (Haryana) under Sections 406, 506 and 498-A of Indian Penal Code is hereby quashed qua the petitioners.
Noting the applicants concern that the charges were unfounded and aimed at ruining his career, acknowledging the statutory declarations that collectively support the applicants claims that the charges are not in character and considering that the Indian court has found that the lodgement of a FIR was driven by matrimonial discord I give significant weight against cancelling the applicant’s visa.
In considering the totality of the discretionary elements, it is not apparent that the applicant wilfully provided incorrect information. When he learned of the circumstances following the submission of his application he sought to clarify the situation by obtaining a police clearance certificate. Eventually, though, he learned that there were charges against him. At this stage the applicant should have notified the Department, but he did not. I accept that he thought that the charges were unfounded and that they would be settled. But this does not remove his obligations to provide the information to the Department as noted above. That the applicant did not complete the application correctly and then, when he learned of this fact, he still chose not to update the Department, led me to cumulatively give substantial weight in favour of cancelling the applicant’s visa. But weighing against the cancellation of the visa is the applicant’s substantial investment in his future. Despite being the only son, he acted against his father’s wishes to pursue an ambition that has now led him to a career as a chef. He has established himself and is on the pathway to applying for permanent residency. I give this substantial weight against cancelling his visa. I placed some weight against cancelling the visa due to the circumstances in which the non-compliance occurred, namely that the applicant was not aware of the charges and his parents appear to have attempted to shield him from them. I also gave substantial weight to the fact that the charges that led to the cancellation were trumped up charges arising from a matrimonial dispute and were dismissed by an Indian court. There were other considerations that I variously gave various lesser weightings to, in favour or against cancellation, as noted above. When considering the weighting cumulatively I acknowledge the seriousness of the applicant’s breaches but when weighed against the impact it will have on him and considering the circumstances surrounding the non-compliance although there was non-compliance by the applicant in the way described in the notice given under s.107 of the Act, I have concluded that the visa should not be cancelled.
DECISION
The Tribunal sets aside the decision under review and substitutes a decision not to cancel the applicant’s Subclass 010 (Bridging A) visa.
Denis Dragovic
Senior Member

ATTACHMENT – Migration Act 1958 (extracts)
5Interpretation
(1)In this Act, unless the contrary intention appears:
bogus document, in relation to a person, means a document that the Minister reasonably suspects is a document that:
(a)     purports to have been, but was not, issued in respect of the person; or
(b)     is counterfeit or has been altered by a person who does not have authority to do so; or
(c)      was obtained because of a false or misleading statement, whether or not made knowingly.
97Interpretation
In this Subdivision:
application form, in relation to a non‑citizen, means a form on which a non‑citizen applies for a visa, being a form that regulations made for the purposes of section 46 allow to be used for making the application.
passenger card has the meaning given by subsection 506(2) and, for the purposes of section 115, includes any document provided for by regulations under paragraph 504(1)(c).
Note:Bogus document is defined in subsection 5(1).
98Completion of visa application
A non‑citizen who does not fill in his or her application form or passenger card is taken to do so if he or she causes it to be filled in or if it is otherwise filled in on his or her behalf.
99Information is answer
Any information that a non‑citizen gives or provides, causes to be given or provided, or that is given or provided on his or her behalf, to the Minister, an officer, an authorised system, a person or the Tribunal, or the Immigration Assessment authority, reviewing a decision under this Act in relation to the non‑citizen’s application for a visa is taken for the purposes of section 100, paragraphs 101(b) and 102(b) and sections 104 and 105 to be an answer to a question in the non‑citizen’s application form, whether the information is given or provided orally or in writing and whether at an interview or otherwise.
100Incorrect answers
For the purposes of this Subdivision, an answer to a question is incorrect even though the person who gave or provided the answer, or caused the answer to be given or provided, did not know that it was incorrect.
101Visa applications to be correct
A non‑citizen must fill in or complete his or her application form in such a way that:
(a)all questions on it are answered; and
(b)no incorrect answers are given or provided.
107Notice of incorrect applications
(1)If the Minister considers that the holder of a visa who has been immigration cleared (whether or not because of that visa) did not comply with section 101, 102, 103, 104 or 105 or with subsection (2) in a response to a notice under this section, the Minister may give the holder a notice:
(a)     giving particulars of the possible non‑compliance; and
(b)     stating that, within a period stated in the notice as mentioned in subsection (1A), the holder may give the Minister a written response to the notice that:
(i)if the holder disputes that there was non‑compliance:
(A)shows that there was compliance; and
(B)in case the Minister decides under section 108 that, in spite of the statement under sub‑subparagraph (A), there was non‑compliance—shows cause why the visa should not be cancelled; or
(ii)if the holder accepts that there was non‑compliance:
(A)give reasons for the non‑compliance; and
(B)shows cause why the visa should not be cancelled; and
(c)      stating that the Minister will consider cancelling the visa:
(i)if the holder gives the Minister oral or written notice, within the period stated as mentioned in subsection (1A), that he or she will not give a written response—when that notice is given; or
(ii)if the holder gives the Minister a written response within that period—when the response is given; or
(iii)otherwise—at the end of that period; and
(d)     setting out the effect of sections 108, 109, 111 and 112; and
(e)      informing the holder that the holder’s obligations under section 104 or 105 are not affected by the notice under this section; and
(f)      requiring the holder:
(i)to tell the Minister the address at which the holder is living; and
(ii)if the holder changes that address before the Minister notifies the holder of the Minister’s decision on whether there was non‑compliance by the holder—to tell the Minister the changed address.
(1A)The period to be stated in the notice under subsection (1) must be:
(a)     in respect of the holder of a temporary visa—the period prescribed by the regulations or, if no period is prescribed, a reasonable period; or
(b)     otherwise—14 days.
(1B)Regulations prescribing a period for the purposes of paragraph (1A)(a) may prescribe different periods and state when a particular period is to apply, which, without limiting the generality of the power, may be to:
(a)     visas of a stated class; or
(b)     visa holders in stated circumstances; or
(c)      visa holders in a stated class of people (who may be visa holders in a particular place); or
(d)     visa holders in a stated class of people (who may be visa holders in a particular place) in stated circumstances.
(2)If the visa holder responds to the notice, he or she must do so without making any incorrect statement.
108Decision about non‑compliance
The Minister is to:
(a)consider any response given by a visa holder in the way required by paragraph 107(1)(b); and
(b)decide whether there was non‑compliance by the visa holder in the way described in the notice.
109Cancellation of visa if information incorrect
(1)The Minister, after:
(a)     deciding under section 108 that there was non‑compliance by the holder of a visa; and
(b)     considering any response to the notice about the non‑compliance given in a way required by paragraph 107(1)(b); and
(c)      having regard to any prescribed circumstances;
may cancel the visa.
(2)If the Minister may cancel a visa under subsection (1), the Minister must do so if there exist circumstances declared by the regulations to be circumstances in which a visa must be cancelled.

[2020] AATA 6048

Key Legal Topics

Areas of Law

Immigration

Administrative Law

Statutory Interpretation

Legal Concepts

Judicial Review

Procedural Fairness

Natural Justice

Statutory Construction

Appeal

Charge