Sajjad (Migration)

The applicant, Mr. Sajjad, sought review of a delegate's decision to cancel his Subclass 020 (Bridging B) visa. He named his wife and son as additional applicants for review, but the Tribunal found it lacked jurisdiction concerning them as the delegate's decision solely addressed the first applicant. The dispute centred on whether the cancellation of Mr. Sajjad's visa was justified, particularly in light of pending criminal charges, his assertion of innocence, and his circumstances in immigration detention.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was to determine whether the grounds for cancelling Mr. Sajjad's visa under section 116 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) were made out. This involved assessing whether there was a possibility that Mr. Sajjad posed a risk to the safety or good order of the Australian community, notwithstanding his pending trial, his intention to plead not guilty, and the fact that he had been granted bail. The Tribunal also considered the impact of the visa cancellation on Mr. Sajjad, including his health concerns in detention and the hardship faced by his family.

The Tribunal applied the principle that the threshold for visa cancellation on character grounds is a low one, requiring only a possibility that the person may be a risk to the community. It noted that the explanatory memorandum to the relevant amendment clarified that this ground applies to risks to individuals or segments of the community, and that the threshold is met even where there is only a possibility of risk, not necessarily a demonstrated actual risk. While acknowledging Mr. Sajjad's arguments regarding his innocence, bail, and previous driving convictions, the Tribunal ultimately concluded that the cancellation of his Bridging B visa was justified.

The Tribunal affirmed the delegate's decision to cancel the first named applicant's Subclass 020 (Bridging B) visa. Consequently, the Tribunal held that it had no jurisdiction with respect to the other applicants, Mr. Sajjad's wife and son.