Singh (Migration)

This matter concerned an application for review of a decision by a delegate of the Minister for Home Affairs to cancel Mr Gurwinder Singh's Subclass 010 (Bridging A) visa under s 116 of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth). Mr Singh, an Indian national, had been in Australia since 2015 and held a series of dependent student and graduate visas, with a Bridging A visa granted pending the determination of an application for an extension of his wife's graduate visa. The cancellation decision was made following Mr Singh's arrest and charge with multiple serious criminal offences, including sexual penetration without consent and unlawful and indecent assault, for which he was granted bail subject to strict conditions.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the ground for cancellation under s 116(1)(e)(i) of the Act was made out, specifically whether Mr Singh's presence in Australia was or might be a risk to the health, safety, or good order of a segment of the Australian community. This required the Tribunal to consider the evidence presented, including the criminal charges, Mr Singh's plea of not guilty, the presumption of innocence, and the conditions of his bail, in determining if the delegate was satisfied that the risk threshold for cancellation was met.

The Tribunal reasoned that while the delegate was satisfied that the ground for cancellation existed based on the serious criminal charges, the decision to cancel the visa required a consideration of all relevant circumstances. Mr Singh's legal team argued that the allegations were unproven, he had no prior criminal history, and the magistrate had granted bail, indicating he did not pose a threat to the community. Furthermore, the Tribunal noted the unusual and unexplained delay in processing Mr Singh's application for a Bridging E visa, his subsequent detention, and the potential financial and emotional hardship to his wife. The Tribunal concluded that the decision to cancel the visa should be set aside, implying that the cancellation was not justified in the circumstances.