Parvezi (Migration)

The Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia considered an appeal by Mr. Parvezi concerning the cancellation of his Bridging E (Class WE) visa, Subclass 050. The cancellation was based on the ground that Mr. Parvezi had been charged with an offence against the law of a State. However, all charges against him were subsequently struck out by the relevant State court.

The primary legal issue before the Court was whether the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs was still empowered to cancel Mr. Parvezi's visa under section 501(3)(b) of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth) once the underlying criminal charges had been dismissed. The Court was required to determine the proper interpretation of the phrase "charged with an offence" in the context of visa cancellation provisions.

The Court reasoned that the cancellation power under section 501(3)(b) is engaged by the act of being charged with an offence, irrespective of the ultimate outcome of those charges. It applied the principle that the legislative intent behind such provisions is to allow for the cancellation of visas where a person faces serious criminal allegations, thereby protecting the Australian community. The Court found that the subsequent striking out of the charges did not retrospectively invalidate the Minister's power to cancel the visa at the time the charge was laid.

The Court allowed the appeal, finding that the Administrative Appeals Tribunal had erred in law by failing to consider the effect of the charges being struck out. The matter was remitted to the Tribunal for redetermination according to law.