Sidhu (Migration)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) considered the case of Mr. Sidhu, who sought review of the delegate's decision to cancel his Temporary Business Entry (Class UC) visa, Subclass 457 (Temporary Work (Skilled)). Mr. Sidhu had been granted the visa to work as a hairdresser for a specific sponsor. The ground for cancellation was that Mr. Sidhu had ceased employment with his sponsor.

The Tribunal was required to determine whether the delegate had erred in cancelling Mr. Sidhu's visa. Specifically, the AAT needed to consider the date on which Mr. Sidhu's employment ceased, whether the circumstances leading to the cessation of employment were beyond his control, and whether the delegate had adequately considered the discretion to not cancel the visa, including the purpose of the visa grant and the best interests of Mr. Sidhu's child.

The Tribunal found that Mr. Sidhu's employment ceased because his sponsor's business underwent a restructure and ultimately ceased trading, a situation that was beyond Mr. Sidhu's control. The Tribunal noted that Mr. Sidhu had made efforts to secure a new nomination but was unsuccessful, partly due to COVID-19 related restrictions and business shutdowns. In light of these circumstances, and considering the best interests of Mr. Sidhu's child, the Tribunal determined that the delegate had not adequately exercised the discretion to not cancel the visa. Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the decision under review, meaning the cancellation decision was set aside and substituted with a decision to not cancel the visa.