Satnam Singh (Migration)

This matter concerned an application for judicial review by Satnam Singh of a decision to cancel his Subclass 020 (Bridging B) visa. The applicant was presently holding a Bridging E visa at the time of the review.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) had erred in affirming the decision to cancel the applicant's Bridging B visa. This required consideration of whether the grounds for cancellation engaged mandatory cancellation provisions and, if not, whether the Tribunal had properly exercised its discretion in cancelling the visa.

The Tribunal reasoned that the ground for cancellation did not mandate cancellation under section 116(3) of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth), thus requiring the exercise of discretion. In considering this discretion, the Tribunal had regard to the applicant's circumstances, including the purpose of his travel and stay, his compliance with visa conditions, and the degree of hardship cancellation might cause. The Tribunal found that while the applicant was fulfilling the purpose of his travel, there was no compelling need for him to remain in Australia. Although the applicant claimed hardship if his visa were cancelled, the Tribunal found these claims unsubstantiated. Crucially, the Tribunal noted that the applicant held a Bridging E visa in association with his ongoing judicial review application, meaning cancellation of the Bridging B visa would not necessitate his departure from Australia.

Ultimately, the Tribunal concluded that, considering all circumstances, the visa should be cancelled and affirmed the decision to cancel the applicant’s Subclass 020 (Bridging B) visa.