Sidhu (Migration)

This matter concerned an appeal to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal regarding the cancellation of the applicant's Subclass 500 (Student) visa. The applicant's visa had been granted as a dependant of Mr. Manpreet Singh Sandhu, the primary visa holder. The cancellation decision was based on the Minister's satisfaction that the ground for cancellation under section 116(1)(a) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) was made out.

The Tribunal was required to determine whether the ground for cancellation under section 116(1)(a) existed, which involves assessing if the decision to grant the visa was based, wholly or partly, on a fact or circumstance that is no longer the case. Specifically, this required the Tribunal to consider whether the applicant remained a member of Mr. Sandhu's family unit as defined by the Migration Regulations 1994, particularly regulation 1.12(2)(a), which refers to being a spouse or de facto partner. The Tribunal also had to exercise its discretion as to whether to cancel the visa, considering all relevant circumstances.

The Tribunal reasoned that the applicant's visa was granted on the basis that she was a member of Mr. Sandhu's family unit, specifically as his spouse. However, the evidence indicated that the applicant and Mr. Sandhu had separated, meaning the applicant was no longer a member of his family unit as defined by the Act and Regulations. The Tribunal found that this constituted a material change in circumstances, satisfying the ground for cancellation under section 116(1)(a). In exercising its discretion, the Tribunal considered the purpose for which the visa was granted, which was to accompany Mr. Sandhu, and concluded that this purpose had ended. While acknowledging the applicant's difficulties with previous visa applications, the Tribunal found no compelling reason to retain the visa.

The Tribunal affirmed the decision to cancel the applicant's Subclass 500 (Student) visa.