Thapa (Migration) - [2018] AATA 4811

Thapa (Migration) [2018] AATA 4811 (26 July 2018)
DECISION RECORD
DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division
APPLICANTS:  Mr Suraj Thapa
Mrs Sandhya Gautam
CASE NUMBER:  1701020
DIBP REFERENCE(S):  BCC2016/108296
MEMBER:Susan Trotter
DATE:26 July 2018
PLACE OF DECISION:  Brisbane
DECISION:The Tribunal sets aside the decision under review and substitutes a decision not to cancel the first-named applicant’s Subclass 187 (Regional Sponsored Migration Scheme) visa.
The Tribunal has no jurisdiction with respect to the second-named applicant.

Statement made on 26 July 2018 at 4:46pm

CATCHWORDS
Migration – Cancellation – Subclass 187 (Regional Sponsored Migration Scheme) visa – The first-named applicant did not commence employment with his nominating employer– Applicant genuinely attempted to commence employment within the required period – Sincere and convincing evidence –Decision set aside and substitute a decision not to cancel the first-named applicant’s visa – No jurisdiction with respect to the second-named applicant

LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958, ss 137, 348
Migration Regulations 1994, r 2.50AA
CASES
Rani & Ors v MIMA (1997) 80 FCR 379
Tien & Ors v MIMA (1998) 89 FCR 80
Weng v MIAC (no. 2) 2011 FCA 444
Yam v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2004] AATA 283
STATEMENT OF DECISION AND REASONS
APPLICATION FOR REVIEW

This is an application for review of a decision made by a delegate of the Minister for Immigration on 13 September 2016 to cancel the first-named applicant’s Subclass 187 (Regional Sponsored Migration Scheme) visa under s.137Q of the Migration Act 1958 (the Act).
The first-named applicant is a 32 year old citizen of Nepal. He first arrived in Australia in January 2009 as the holder of a Subclass 572 (Vocational and Educational Training Sector) visa and was granted a Subclass 187 (Regional Sponsored Migration Scheme) visa on 16 September 2015. Connection Point Pty Ltd was the approved nominator of the visa with the first-named applicant nominated to work in the occupation of Financial Investment Advisor.
The second-named applicant is a 32 year old citizen of Nepal and is the wife of the first-named applicant.
On 9 July 2016, a Notice of Intention to Consider Cancellation (NOICC) was forwarded to the first-named applicant, advising of intention to cancel his visa on the basis that the first-named applicant did not commence the employment referred to in the relevant employer nomination with Connection Point Pty Ltd within the period prescribed in the regulations as required.
No response was received to the NOICC and, on 13 September 2016 the first-named applicant’s visa was cancelled under s.137Q(1) of the Act on the basis that the delegate was not satisfied that the first-named applicant had made a genuine effort to commence employment within six months from the grant of the Subclass 187 visa on 16 September 2015.
The second-named applicant’s visa was automatically cancelled as a consequence of the operation of s.137Tof the Act, which made the cancellation of the second-named applicant’s visa self-executing upon the cancellation of the first-named applicant’s visa.
The first-named applicant was renotified of the cancellation of the visa on 18 January 2017.
The applicants lodged an application for review of the delegate’s decision with the Tribunal on 20 January 2017. The applicants did not provide a copy of the delegate’s decision and decision record to the Tribunal with their application.
For the purposes of the Tribunal’s jurisdiction under s.348 of the Act, the only decision that is before the Tribunal is that with respect to the first-named applicant. The other visa was automatically cancelled as a consequence of that cancellation, not by a decision but by force of the operation of s.137T of the Act. As no decision was involved in the visa cancellation under s.137T, the Tribunal has no jurisdiction with respect to the second-named applicant.
The applicants appeared before the Tribunal on 12 June 2018 and 22 June 2018 to give evidence and present arguments.
The applicants were represented in relation to the review.
For the following reasons, the Tribunal has concluded that the decision to cancel the first-named applicant’s visa should be set aside.
ISSUES
Under s.137Q the Minister has the power to cancel a ‘regional sponsored employment visa’ on specified grounds. ‘Regional sponsored employment visa’ means a visa of a kind included in a class of visas that has the words ‘Employer Nomination’ in its title and is prescribed by the regulations for the purposes of the definition in s.137Q(3). The visas currently prescribed by r.2.50AA of the Migration Regulations 1994 (the Regulations) are: Subclass 119 (Regional Sponsored Migration Scheme); Subclass 187 (Regional Sponsored Migration Scheme) and Subclass 857 (Regional Sponsored Migration Scheme).
Under s.137Q(1) the Minister may cancel the visa if satisfied that the visa holder has not commenced the employment referred to in the relevant employer nomination within the period prescribed by the regulations and the person does not satisfy the Minister that they have made a genuine effort to commence that employment within that period. The relevant periods are specified in r.2.50AA and relevantly, as regards this matter, the period is six months.
If satisfied that the ground for cancellation is made out, the decision maker must proceed to consider whether the visa should be cancelled, having regard to all the relevant circumstances, which may include matters of government policy.
There are no matters specified in the Act or the Regulations that are required to be considered in relation to the exercise of the discretion to cancel the visa. However, in considering whether to exercise the discretion to cancel the first-named applicant’s visa, the Tribunal has had regard to the relevant circumstances including but not limited to matters identified in the Procedures Advice Manual (PAM3) of the Department of Immigration and Border Protection (the Department) under ‘Visa cancellation – Regional Sponsored employment visa cancellation’ including:
·the purpose of the visa holder’s travel and stay in Australia; whether the visa holder has a compelling need to travel to or remain in Australia;
·the extent of compliance with visa conditions;
·degree of hardship that may be caused (financial, psychological, emotional or other hardship) to the visa holder and any family members;
·circumstances in which the ground of cancellation arose. As a general rule, a visa should not be cancelled where the circumstances in which the ground for cancellation arose were beyond the visa holder’s control;
·past and present conduct of the visa holder towards the Department;
·whether there are mandatory legal consequences, such as whether cancellation would result in the visa holder being unlawful and subject to detention, or whether indefinite detention is a possible consequence of cancellation, or whether there are provisions in the Act which prevent the person from making a valid visa application without the Minister’s intervention;
·whether there would be consequential cancellations under s.137T of the Act;
·whether any international obligations would be breached as a result of the cancellation
·whether the cancellation would lead to removal in breach of Australia’s non-refoulment obligations; and
·any other relevant matters.
It follows that the issues to be determined by the Tribunal are:
(a)Does the ground for cancellation exist?; and, if so,
(b)Should the discretion to cancel the visa be exercised?
CONSIDERATION
The first-named applicant’s evidence at the two hearings included as follows:
(a)He first arrived in Australia on 29 January 2009. He held a student visa and he has studied a Certificate IV in Spoken and Written English, a Certificate III in Baking – Cake and Pastry, a Certificate IV in Business Management, a Diploma of Business Management and an Advanced Diploma of Management in Australia.
(b)He extended his student visa for two years when he first came to Australia. He was studying and working part-time. His wife came to Australia in December 2011. She started a Diploma in Nursing and is currently working in aged care.
(c)He finished his last study in 2013. He was a dependent upon his wife’s visa at that time. His last course was the Advanced Diploma of Management.
(d)For six and a half years from 2009, he worked at the same place, for Philip Churben of Best Western Astor Motel and Apartment. He was cleaning and training in the laundry and he also did on the job training in the restaurant. He worked in this job for approximately five to six years from June 2010.
(e)When he was granted the Subclass 187 visa, he left his job at the motel. He thought he was going to start a new job. The job at the motel was casual so he did not have to resign. He finished the old job in September 2015 and gave notice that he would be finishing three or four months earlier. He wanted to give them as much notice as possible because he had worked there for so long. He gave them verbal notice. He may have signed an employment contract for his old job but he cannot now remember. His employers were aware that he was seeking other employment and another visa. He started speaking with them about his plans six or seven months beforehand.
(f)He and his wife had previously been living at Spring Hill, but a couple of years before he left the job at the motel, they moved to a unit at Chermside. His wife previously worked at Arcare, North Lakes, as a nurse but by September 2015, she was working at Wesley Mission, Chermside.
(g)His new job was to be located at Helensvale on the northern Gold Coast.
(h)When queried as to what brought about the decision to move from Spring Hill to Chermside, he stated that they moved because of his wife’s health issues so that her commute to the job at Wesley Mission, Chermside was easier.
(i)When queried as to what his wife’s health issues were, he responded that she had breast cancer and that they received the letter from the hospital just after receiving the visa cancellation. The Tribunal queried what, if any, health issues the first-named applicant’s wife was experiencing at the time of the move to Chermside as distinct from 2016 when she learned she had breast cancer). The first-named applicant responded that her troubles at that time were in relation to migraine and thyroid so they wanted it to be a quick commute for her.
(j)When queried as to whether he had any discussions with his wife about moving to Helensvale, given his new job was located there, the first-named applicant responded that they were thinking of him moving and living in a share house while working and then visiting his wife at Chermside when he was not working. They were thinking that the Chermside address was going to be temporary and that if his wife could also get a job at Helensvale, they could move near there. When queried as to whether his wife had applied for any jobs in the Helensvale area, he responded that they were waiting for him to start his job and settle in a bit because one of them needed to be working and settled.
(k)He was told by an acquaintance about the Regional Sponsored Migration Scheme visa scheme and that there were consultancies/agencies that could assist him in getting a Regional Sponsored Migration Scheme visa. He googled and found Marie Dawson. She told him that she was a migration agent. She was not a lawyer. He was looking for a job as a baker. Marie Dawson told him the names of other persons who had been granted the Subclass 187 visas and showed him a big folder with all their photos and information. It was very impressive.
(l)Marie Dawson told him the cost of the visa would be around $15,000 for everything. When queried as to whether he had talked to anyone else to ascertain whether that quoted amount was reasonable, the first-named applicant responded that the way her office looked, and her big files, etc, all seemed reasonable so he did not speak to anyone else. He had to pay $6,500 to sign up.
(m)On one occasion, Marie Dawson arranged for him to visit a bakery at Bribie Island. She told him they were willing to sponsor him on a Subclass 457 visa. He said he wanted to go for a permanent visa, not a 457. Marie said that he should go and see the employer. They did not talk about money or anything. He was asking about whether he had ever worked in a bakery. That did not go ahead because Marie came back to him and asked for $45,000 and he said that he did not have that money.
(n)Lia Galante of 123 Finance (Connection Point Pty Ltd) was the nominator of his Subclass 187 visa. Marie Dawson suggested this employer to him. The job was as a broker. He told Marie he had never done that sort of job before and she told him they would provide him with on the job training until he was ready.
(o)He did not ever meet Lia Galante. He did not ever meet anyone at 123 Finance. He tried to call them on the phone a couple of times but they did not answer. Marie was the medium between them. He did ask Marie to meet the employer before he started work there but she told him they were overseas. When queried as to when this was, he responded that it was in March 2015. When queried as to whether he tried to meet the employer at any time between March 2015 and September 2015, the first-named applicant responded that he trusted Marie all the time. He thought it was best to talk to Marie. The Tribunal noted that the first-named applicant had gone to meet the prospective employer on Bribie Island and queried whether it seemed odd to him not to meet the employer at 123 Finance. The first-named applicant said that every time he asked to meet the employer at 123 Finance, Marie just kept saying she was overseas.
(p)Marie was the one who organised his new job. She told him the employer was overseas and that he would be starting the new job in October 2015. She did not give the exact dates. Marie was the one that told him that he had the job. When he queried Marie as to whether he needed to attend an interview for the job, she said it was not necessary because she had already sent the employer all his details and information about his qualifications.
(q)The Tribunal queried the first-named applicant as to whether once he found out about the job at 123 Finance and where it was located from Marie, he had looked up where their offices were and checked it out. The first-named applicant responded that he and his wife went to Helensvale to check it out. They went in his wife’s car. When queried as to whether he remembers approximately when that was, he responded that he could not remember when it was. He was then waiting for Marie’s instructions as to when he started. Marie had told him that it was a full-time job, Monday to Friday, 38 hours per week and that the hours were 8.30 am to 4.30/5.00 pm each day.
(r)When queried as to whether he had looked at how he was going to get to work, the first-named applicant responded that he was very excited about the new job. He said that at the time he was riding a motorbike and his wife had a car. However, he looked to buy another car to be safer for the commute. He discussed this with his wife. When queried as to when he sold the motorbike, he said it all happened after the visa was granted, all before 2016. Then his wife bought another car and he started to drive his wife’s car. When queried as to when that occurred, he replied it was in January/February 2016. When queried what arrangements he had made for getting from Chermside to Helensvale for work in September or October 2015, he replied at the time he was waiting for Marie’s instructions. He was waiting to hear from Marie. The Tribunal queried why the first-named applicant did not make arrangements (about getting to the new job) in October 2015. He replied that he was still waiting for Marie, and that back then he believed what she was saying. However, she just kept saying that she was trying to get the date.
(s)When queried as to whether Marie told him how much he was going to be paid for the job, the first-named applicant said that she did not tell him at the beginning but then she told him it was an hourly rate of $23.50. She did not tell him the actual salary.
(t)He signed the employment contract in front of Marie. His wife was with him. He thinks that he asked about the job rules and condition but he cannot recall. He knew the salary and the days and hours of work. He was just waiting to find out when he started.
(u)The Tribunal queried the first-named applicant as to what he thought the requirements or conditions were once he was granted the Subclass 187 visa. He responded that he was required to commence a job with the sponsor within six months. He was desperately waiting for that. He also had to live in a regional area. Marie told him all about that. He remembers her telling him something about postcodes.
(v)When queried as to what Marie told him about the company, he responded that she told him there were four or five persons working there. She said that he would be very happy with the job. She always told him good things about the job.
(w)Marie told him the main person at 123 Finance was Lia Galante, the managing director of the company. She was the person that was overseas. The Tribunal queried the first-named applicant whether he had asked Marie about meeting the other four or five people who worked there. The first-named applicant responded that Marie said that she did not know the workers who worked there and back then he did not know how to contact them. When queried whether he had looked up the address or phone number, the first-named applicant said that he had. When queried as to when it was that he tried to call the company, the first-named applicant said that it was some time around October 2015, before he met with Marie on 2 October 2015.
(x)When the first-named applicant was referred to his statutory declaration which referred to him having quit his old job in September 2015, awaiting instructions from Marie and remaining unemployed for three months, the first-named applicant said that Marie gave him the termination letter on 2 October 2015. He and his wife met with Marie on 2 October 2015 at Ryans on the Park. He was really excited about the meeting because he thought he would be finding out about starting work. When queried as to what the remaining $30,000 in cash referred to in the statutory declaration was, the first-named applicant said that when they first met, Marie only mentioned the fee of $6,500 and $15,000. When queried as to when Marie asked him for another $30,000, he stated that Marie told him that before the visa was granted in mid-September 2015. When queried as to whether Marie told him when he would be required to provide the $30,000, the first-named applicant said he was very, very shocked – it was a lot of money. He was really, really upset. At that time they had already lodged the application and were waiting for a decision. When the Bribie Island job was being discussed, and the fee being $45,000, he had told Marie it was too much money and they could not afford it. She said they had time to earn some more money, and that in the meantime she would look for a new employer. When queried, the first-named applicant said that Marie asked for $30,000 extra after she told him he had the job but before the visa was granted. He did not have the $30,000 when she first asked for it. He has used credit cards and borrowed money from friends. He had accumulated the $30,000 by the end of September and he took the money along to the meeting on 2 October 2015. Marie asked him to bring the $30,000 to the meeting on 2 October 2015 and asked him to bring the money in cash. He said to Marie many times that the money would be very hard for him to organise. She said that other people had been deported when they had not paid. She had sent him a message about a few people being deported if they did not pay. Although he continued to have concerns at the 2 October 2015 meeting, he still continued to do what she said (including giving Marie the $30,000 and deleting previous emails and messages when she asked) because she was warning him about the possibility of him being deported otherwise. She apologised to him when she told him that the employer had terminated his position before he started but said it was not her decision, rather it was the employer’s decision.
(y)After the 2 October 2015 meeting, he would call Marie but she would not answer. He started looking for another job himself. He could not contact her for many months but one occasion when he stopped for food when driving back from Toowoomba to Brisbane, he ran into her at a Hungry Jacks. She gave him a new mobile phone number and he updated her on the job he then had in Toowoomba. His wife was not with him at the time but he afterward told her about running into Marie. Then when he received the cancellation notice from the Department, he called her and she said it might be a scam so that is why he did not respond to the notice from the Department.
(z)In addition to considering travel and living arrangements for the new job, he also bought a few pairs of formals shirts and suits. He remembers coming to the city to buy these clothes because he had not worn these types of formal clothes before. He spent approximately $200 to $300 on new clothes for the job. He bought things on sale, including from Betts and a men’s clothing stall in the Queen Street mall. He bought the clothes in the last week of September, after the visa had been granted, and when he was waiting to find out his start date for the new job.
(aa)He has since reported his dealings with Marie to the police. His previous migration agent suggested that he should and after talking to his wife they decided to. They relied on Marie and they now realise she pretty much did everything wrong. It has ended up with him and his wife living separately for more than two years (his wife is still in Chermside and he is working in Toowoomba and having to travel to see his wife) and it has caused them a lot of stress. On one occasion he went to Police Beat at Chermside Shopping Centre to discuss it but there was no-one there. He therefore rang and explained everything over the phone and then went to the Stafford Police Station. He told the police he was waiting for his hearing at the Tribunal and they suggested that he wait until after then.

The second-named applicant’s evidence to the Tribunal included as follows:
(a)Her husband found Marie on Google. They were very impressed with her offices and how she presented herself and her business. She was very nice, open, honest and friendly and they felt they could trust her. Everything happened through Marie. At one stage she told them that the owner of 123 Finance, where Marie arranged a job for her husband, would come to see them but Marie then said the owner was busy and was overseas.
(b)To the best of her memory, her husband was offered the job with 123 Finance in early 2015 and then they had to wait for the visa and to find out when he started work. Everything was arranged via Marie. She was with her husband when he received the employment contract from Marie. Marie told her husband that training would be provided by the employer. She told her husband that after the visa was granted he would have to start the job within three months and he would be given training.
(c)Once the visa was granted in September 2015, they expected that her husband would be starting the job soon. When the visa was granted, they were so happy and thought everything was working out.
(d)Her husband did try to call 123 Finance a few times but could not get through to the owner.
(e)She and her husband drove past the Helensvale exit, when they were driving to the Gold Coast, so they knew where the job would be. The plan was for her husband to look for share accommodation at Helensvale where he would live and she would continue to live at Chermside and continue with her job until her husband was settled in her new job. She was then going to start to look for work near Helensvale so she could move to live with her husband. They also discussed selling her husband’s motorbike because they thought it was not safe enough to be riding such a long distance to and from Helensvale when he visited her initially. They also bought new clothes for her husband for the job once the visa was granted.
(f)When Marie told them at the meeting in October that her husband had been terminated from the job before he started, they were very shocked. However, they were also very scared because Marie had previously warned them about people being deported if they did not pay the money they owed. They ended up feeling foolish and intimidated by Marie and later realised that she was not to be trusted. However, at the time they really believed everything she told them.
Submissions to the Tribunal included as follows:
(a)Marie dealt with the applicants over a long period of time and manipulated them over a long period of time. She developed their trust and controlled the information she gave them.
(b)There are many actions that were taken by the applicants, such as the first-named applicant quitting his other job, buying clothes, investigating transport options, etc, that do not make sense except in the context that the first-named applicant believed that he was going to start the job as promised.
Issue 1 – Does the ground for cancellation exist?
It is submitted on behalf of the first-named applicant that there is no ground to cancel his visa because he made a genuine effort to commence employment and his termination from employment was outside his control.
It is not in dispute that the first-named applicant did not commence employment as a Financial Investment Advisor with his nominating employer for the subject visa. A ground for cancellation therefore arises unless the first-named applicant made a genuine effort to commence that employment within six months.
In considering whether the first-named applicant made a ‘genuine effort’, the Tribunal has had regard to the dictionary definitions of the words ‘genuine’ and ‘effort’, the relevant Departmental guidelines, relevant case law, the documentary and oral evidence before it and the submissions made on behalf of the first-named applicant.
The phrase term ‘genuine effort’ is not defined in the legislation. According to the Macquarie Dictionary Online, the word ‘genuine’ is defined to mean: ‘1. being truly such; real; authentic…2. properly so called…3. sincere; free from pretence or affectation’. The word ‘effort’ is also defined to mean: ‘1. exertion of power, physical or mental…2. an attempt…3. something done by exertion; an achievement…’.
In in Weng v MIAC (no. 2) [2011 FCA 444 [at 50]], when considering the meaning of the phrase ‘genuine effort’ in s134(1) of the Act, the court agreed with the interpretation in Yam v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2004] AATA 283 [at 53], that ‘genuine’ means effort that is more than ‘superficial or token’.
In addition, in considering the phrase ‘genuine effort’, the Tribunal had regard to the Department’s policy guidelines (at PAM3) which suggest as follows when assessing genuine effort:
Genuine effort
In order for the grounds for cancellation at s137Q(2) to be made out, not only must the visa holder have not commenced employment or completed the required two year employment period, the visa holder must also have not satisfied the delegate that they have made a genuine effort to commence employment, or to complete the required two year employment period.
Note: The onus is on the visa holder, through their representations, to satisfy the delegate that they have made a genuine effort to commence employment or complete the required employment period.
It is expected that the visa holder will commence employment or complete the required employment period, unless there are compassionate or compelling circumstances that prevented them from doing so. For example, a person cannot be considered to have made a genuine effort where they have ceased employment because a more attractive employment offer from another employer has been made.
In assessing whether the visa holder has made a genuine effort, the delegate should consider:
·the visa holder’s reasons for, and/or circumstances leading to, the failure to commence work or to complete the two year employment period (family or personal considerations may be a factor under these circumstances)
·the possibility that the visa holder, in collusion with the employer, did not commence work within the six month period or resigned shortly after commencing work, as part of an arrangement to help the visa holder enter or remain in Australia
·in the case of termination, the period of the visa holder’s employment with the employer prior to termination of the employment and
·any other matter which is relevant to the commencement or termination of the employment.
A visa holder may be able to satisfy the delegate that they have made a genuine effort if the failure to commence or complete the two year employment period was because of a situation beyond the visa holder’s control. Examples include:
·the position was not filled or did not remain viable due to a serious downturn in business activity or
·financial loss, bankruptcy or closure of the business.
A situation intentionally created by the visa holder that results in termination of their employment would not be considered a genuine effort.
The facts of this matter suggest an extended deception and suggest that there was never in fact a job for the first-named applicant to commence. It is difficult to conceive in hindsight that the first-named applicant and his wife continually put their trust, and their money, in a person whom ultimately it appears has betrayed them. However, the Tribunal has had the benefit of questioning the first-named applicant and his wife at length at hearing and accepts, after very close and extended questioning, that their evidence was direct and sincere and that they both genuinely, albeit naively, believed that the first-named applicant had been offered a job which he would be commencing upon grant of the visa. To this end the Tribunal accepts the evidence that the first-named applicant quit his long-standing job, made plans in relation to accommodation and transport for the new job and purchased new clothing and shoes for the new job. The Tribunal accepts that these actions, particularly quitting his previous job, are not the actions of a person who did not believe that the new job existed or who was not making genuine efforts to commence the new job.
Overall, the Tribunal found the first-named applicant’s evidence sincere and convincing and it accepts that he genuinely attempted to commence employment within the required period. However, it appears there was some sort of collusion or subterfuge between Marie and the applicant’s nominating employer, of which the Tribunal accepts the first-named applicant was not aware. The Tribunal is satisfied that in all the circumstances of this case, notwithstanding that he never commenced employment with the nominating employer, the first-named applicant did make a genuine effort, that was not token or superficial, to do so within the required period.
Accordingly, the Tribunal finds that the requirements of s.137Q(1) are not satisfied in this case. It follows that the discretionary power to cancel the first-named applicant’s Subclass 187 (Regional Sponsored Migration Scheme) visa under s.137Q of the Act does not arise.
Issue 2 – Should the discretion to cancel the visa be exercised?
Given the Tribunal’s finding that the discretionary power to cancel the visa does not arise, it is not necessary to consider this issue.
Secondary applicant
As discussed with the first-named applicant and his representative at hearing, the only decision that is before the Tribunal is the decision with respect to the first-named applicant. The second-named applicant’s visa was cancelled not by a decision, but by force of the operation of s.137T of the Act, which made the cancellation of the second-named applicant’s visa self-executing on the cancellation of the first-named applicant’s visa: see Rani & Ors v MIMA (1997) 80 FCR 379 at 385, 393, 400; Tien & Ors v MIMA (1998) 89 FCR 80 at 96. As no decision was involved in the second-named applicant’s visa cancellation under s.137T, the Tribunal has no jurisdiction with respect to her.
DECISION
The Tribunal sets aside the decision under review and substitutes a decision not to cancel the first-named applicant’s Subclass 187 (Regional Sponsored Migration Scheme) visa.
The Tribunal has no jurisdiction with respect to the second-named applicant.
Susan Trotter

Member