Yang (Migration)

This matter concerned an appeal by Mr Yang against the cancellation of his Subclass 482 Temporary Skill Shortage visa. The cancellation was based on the employer’s approval as a standard business sponsor being cancelled, which constituted a ground for cancellation under s 116(1)(g) and r 2.43(1)(l) of the relevant regulations. The applicant was unable to secure alternative employment or sponsorship.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether, having established a ground for cancellation that did not mandate it, the visa should be cancelled in the exercise of the Tribunal's discretion. The Tribunal was required to consider the circumstances of the case, including submissions made by the applicant and relevant policy considerations.

The Tribunal noted that the applicant had worked legally in Australia and paid taxes, and had expressed concerns about his lack of family support in China. However, the Tribunal found that the visa was granted for the specific purpose of enabling the applicant to work for his approved sponsor in a nominated occupation. Given that the employer's sponsorship had been cancelled and the applicant had been unable to secure alternative employment or sponsorship in his nominated occupation since early 2020, the original purpose of his visa was no longer being served. The Tribunal considered that there were no real prospects of the applicant being able to work for an approved sponsor in his nominated occupation, which weighed heavily in favour of cancellation.

The Tribunal affirmed the decision to cancel the applicant’s Subclass 482 visa.