Puria (Migration)

This matter concerned an appeal by Mr Puria against the cancellation of his Subclass 485 (Temporary Graduate) visa. Mr Puria had been granted the visa as a secondary applicant, intending to remain in Australia with his partner. However, their relationship had ended, and Mr Puria was no longer in a relationship with the primary visa holder. The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (the Tribunal) was required to determine whether to affirm the decision to cancel Mr Puria's visa.

The central legal issue before the Tribunal was whether Mr Puria had a compelling need to remain in Australia, despite no longer being in a relationship with the primary visa holder. Mr Puria argued that he needed to remain in Australia for one to two years to save money to obtain a Parenting order, which would allow him to see his three-year-old child. He stated that his wife had prevented him from seeing their child for the past six months and that he had no current arrangements for contact.

The Tribunal acknowledged Mr Puria's desire to remain in Australia to see his child and his efforts to save money for legal proceedings. However, it found that, in the absence of any current arrangements for contact, the child's mother refusing access, and no proceedings on foot to obtain a Parenting order, there was no compelling need for Mr Puria to remain in Australia. The Tribunal concluded that, considering all the circumstances, the visa should be cancelled. The Tribunal affirmed the decision to cancel Mr Puria's Subclass 485 (Temporary Graduate) visa.