Pathuri (Migration)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal reviewed a decision to cancel the Temporary Business Entry (Class UC) visa, subclass 457 (Temporary Work (Skilled)), held by Mr. Pathuri. The dispute arose after Mr. Pathuri ceased employment with his sponsoring employer, Aurec, on 31 October 2018. Under condition 8107(3)(b) of his visa, he had 60 days to secure a new sponsoring employer. Mr. Pathuri failed to do so within this period, and his continued stay in Australia for over two years thereafter, while searching for work, was considered inconsistent with the purpose of his visa.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether to affirm the delegate's decision to cancel Mr. Pathuri's visa. This involved assessing the weight of various factors, including the seriousness of the breach of visa conditions, the applicant's extended period of unemployment and unsuccessful job search, the purpose of the 457 visa, the claimed financial and personal hardship if the visa were cancelled, and the circumstances under which his employment ceased. The Tribunal also considered the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on his job search and the applicant's engagement with the cancellation process.

The Tribunal reasoned that Mr. Pathuri's breach of condition 8107(3)(b) was substantial, as he had been unable to secure a new nomination application for over two years since ceasing employment. While acknowledging that the employment cessation may have been due to circumstances beyond his control and that the COVID-19 pandemic presented challenges, the Tribunal found these factors did not outweigh the seriousness of the breach and the inconsistency of his prolonged stay with the visa's purpose. The Tribunal also noted that while the applicant claimed hardship, this was mitigated by the fact he had not been earning an income in Australia since October 2018 and had only been in Australia for a relatively short period. The Tribunal also considered the potential impact of Public Interest Criterion 4014, which could affect future visa applications, as a factor weighing in the applicant's favour.

Ultimately, the Tribunal concluded that, on balance, the matters favouring cancellation outweighed those against it. The Tribunal affirmed the delegate's decision to cancel Mr. Pathuri's subclass 457 visa.