Raj (Migration)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal considered a migration matter concerning the applicant, who held a Partner (Temporary) (Class UK) visa, Subclass 820 (Spouse). The dispute arose from the applicant providing incorrect information on their visa application and Incoming Passenger Cards, coupled with convictions for offences and subsequent deportation from New Zealand. Despite these issues, the applicant had a long residence in Australia, an Australian partner and child, and significant family commitments within the country.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether, in light of the applicant's non-compliance with the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth) as notified under section 107, the Subclass 820 visa should be cancelled. The Tribunal was required to weigh the seriousness of the non-compliance against all other relevant circumstances, including the best interests of the applicant's child.

The Tribunal reasoned that while there was clear non-compliance, a cancellation of the visa was not warranted when considering the totality of the circumstances. The Tribunal specifically took into account the applicant's established life in Australia, their family ties, and the impact on their child. Applying these considerations, the Tribunal concluded that it was appropriate to substitute a decision not to cancel the visa. The Tribunal set aside the original decision to cancel the visa and substituted a decision that the visa should not be cancelled.