Sandhu (Migration)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal considered the case of Mr. Sandhu, who sought review of the Minister's decision to cancel his Temporary Business Entry (Class UC) visa, Subclass 457 (Temporary Work (Skilled)). The dispute arose because Mr. Sandhu ceased employment with his sponsor for more than 60 days, a breach of his visa conditions, following the closure of the sponsoring business.

The Tribunal was required to determine whether the grounds for visa cancellation under section 116(1)(b) of the Migration Act 1958 were made out, specifically concerning the applicant's failure to comply with visa condition 8107. If satisfied that the grounds were established, the Tribunal then had to consider whether to exercise its discretion to affirm the cancellation decision, taking into account all relevant circumstances, including government policy and any hardship caused by the cancellation.

The Tribunal found that Mr. Sandhu had indeed ceased employment with his sponsor on 10 May 2018 due to the business closing and had not secured new employment or a new sponsor within the prescribed 60-day period. While acknowledging the applicant's desire to remain in Australia, his eleven-year period of temporary residency, and his family circumstances, the Tribunal was not satisfied that these presented compelling reasons to exercise discretion against cancellation. The Tribunal noted that the applicant's longevity in Australia as a temporary resident and his child's schooling did not constitute a sufficient ground to override the compliance issue.

Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the decision to cancel Mr. Sandhu's Subclass 457 visa. The Tribunal also noted that it had no jurisdiction concerning the second and third applicants, whose visas were automatically cancelled as a consequence of the first applicant's visa cancellation under section 140(1) of the Act, as no separate decision was made regarding their visas.