[Home] [Databases] [WorldLII] [Search] [Feedback] Administrative Appeals Tribunal of Australia

You are here: 

Kaur (Migration) [2021] AATA  3274  (24 August 2021)

Last Updated: 10 September 2021

Kaur (Migration)  [2021] AATA 3274  (24 August 2021)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION: Migration & Refugee Division

APPLICANT: Ms Harsimran KAUR

CASE NUMBER: 2100862

HOME AFFAIRS REFERENCE(S): BCC2018/4190124

MEMBER: Nathan Goetz

DATE: 24 August 2021

PLACE OF DECISION: Sydney

DECISION: The Tribunal affirms the decision to cancel the applicant’s Subclass 020 (Bridging B) visa.

Statement made on 24 August 2021 at 4:44pm

CATCHWORDS
MIGRATION – cancellation – Bridging B (Class WB) visa – Subclass 020 (Bridging B) – visa granted on fact or circumstance that did not exist – outstanding migration matters – judicial review proceedings of substantive visa refusal finalised at time of application – discretion to cancel visa – study with view to obtaining permanent residency – not aware that high court special leave application had been deemed abandoned – lack of awareness does not change fact that grounds for grant of visa did not exist – length of residence, study and job placements – decision under review affirmed

LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958 (Cth), s 116(1)(aa), (3)
Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth), r 020.212(3)(c)(i)

STATEMENT OF DECISION AND REASONS
APPLICATION FOR REVIEW

1. This is an application for review of a decision made by a delegate of the Minister for Home Affairs to cancel the applicant’s Subclass 020 (Bridging B) visa under s.116 of the Migration Act 1958 (the Act).

IDENTITY, MIGRATION HISTORY AND CHRONOLOGY

2. The applicant identifies as a 35-year-old female citizen of India. On 21 April 2009 the applicant arrived in Australia holding a vocational education and training sector visa which ceased on 16 April 2011.

3. On 15 June 2011 the applicant applied for a further vocational education and training sector visa. On 15 June 2011 she was granted a bridging visa in connection with the substantive visa application.

4. On 11 October 2011 a delegate refused to grant the applicant the vocational education and training sector visa. On 21 October 2011 the applicant applied to the Tribunal for a review of the decision refusing to grant her the vocational education and training sector visa. On 10 September 2014 the Tribunal affirmed the decision refusing to grant the applicant the vocational education and training sector visa.

5. On 15 October 2014 the applicant lodged judicial review proceedings in the Federal Circuit Court against the decision of the Tribunal. On 16 October 2014 the bridging visa ceased, and the applicant was granted another bridging visa that day in connection with the judicial review proceedings. That visa ceased on 19 December 2014 and the applicant was granted another bridging visa.

6. On 5 November 2015 the Federal Circuit Court dismissed the judicial review proceeding.

7. On 19 November 2015 the applicant appealed against the Federal Circuit Court decision to the Federal Court. On 30 November 2015 the bridging visa ceased, and the applicant was granted another bridging visa that same day.

8. On 11 February 2016 the Federal Court dismissed the appeal.

9. On 10 March 2016 the applicant appealed against the decision of the Federal Court to the High Court. This bridging visa ceased on 16 March 2016. That same day, the applicant was granted another bridging visa. On 5 May 2016 the bridging visa ceased.

10. On 16 May 2016 the High Court by letter deemed the appeal abandoned because the applicant had not complied with Rule 41 of the High Court Rules by 4pm on 7 April 2016.

11. On 15 June 2016 the applicant applied for the Minister to Intervene and substitute the Tribunal decision with a decision more favourable to her. On 20 June 2016 the request was finalised with the request not being referred to the Minister. On 10 November 2016 the applicant was granted a bridging visa.

12. On 28 June 2017 the bridging visa ceased. On 28 June 2017 the applicant was granted a bridging visa. On 15 December 2017 the bridging visa ceased. On 15 December 2017 the applicant was granted a bridging visa. On 7 June 2018 the bridging ceased.

13. On 7 June 2018 the applicant was granted a bridging visa that is the subject of the delegate decision record. The conditions attached to that bridging visa were a limitation on the amount of work she was allowed to perform (8105) and a requirement that she maintain health insurance (8501).

14. On 21 January 2021 a delegate cancelled the bridging visa that had been granted on 7 June 2018 under s.116(1)(aa) of the Act.

15. On 27 January 2021 the applicant applied to the Tribunal to review the decision to cancel the bridging visa.

16. On 29 January 2021 the applicant was granted a bridging visa that remains in effect until the Tribunal makes a decision. The conditions attached to that bridging visa were a prohibition on working in Australia (8101), that she report to the department as directed (8401), that she notify the department of any change of residential address (8506), that she not study (8207) and that she not engage in criminal conduct (8564).

17. On 2 August 2021 the Tribunal invited the applicant to appear at a Tribunal hearing to give evidence and present arguments relating to the issues arising in relation to the decision under review. The Tribunal was required to do so because it had considered the information it had and was unable to make a decision favourable to the applicant.

18. On 18 August 2021 the applicant appeared at a Tribunal hearing by telephone. The Tribunal was satisfied that a telephone hearing was appropriate given the COVID-19 pandemic.

THE STATUTORY FRAMEWORK

19. Under s.116 of the Act, the Minister may cancel a visa if he or she is satisfied that certain grounds specified in that provision are made out. Relevantly to this case, these include the ground set out in s.116(1)(aa).

20. Section 116(1)(aa) provides that the Minister may cancel a visa if the decision to grant the visa was based, wholly or partly, on the existence of a particular fact or circumstance, and that fact or circumstance did not exist.

21. 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.

22. Section 116(1)(aa) is subject to (2) and (3). They are as follows:

(2) The Minister is not to cancel a visa under subsection (1), (1AA), (1AB) or (1AC) if there exist prescribed circumstances in which a visa is not to be cancelled.

23. There are not currently any circumstances prescribed under s.116(2) in which a visa must not be cancelled.

(3) If the Minister may cancel a visa under subsection (1), (1AA), (1AB) or (1AC), the Minister must do so if there exist prescribed circumstances in which a visa must be cancelled.

24. The prescribed circumstances in which abridging visa must be cancelled under s 116(3) are set out in reg 2.43(2). The only circumstances prescribed are grounds for cancellation that are prescribed for s 116(1)(g) in reg 2.43(1), for example, the person’s presence in Australia would be contrary to foreign policy interests, or the person is directly or indirectly associated with proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, or assessed by ASIO to be, directly or indirectly, a risk to security.

25. Therefore, (2) and (3) do not apply when considering whether the applicant’s bridging visa should be cancelled.

CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE

The delegate decision

26. The delegate decision detailed that ‘on 15 June 2011 HARSIMRAN KAUR (the visa holder) lodged an application for a Student (Vocational Education Sector) (subclass 572) visa while onshore in Australia. On 11 October 2011 the Department made the decision to refuse her application for a Student visa. On 21 October 2011 the visa holder engaged the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) to seek review of the Departments decision. On 12 September 2014 the AAT upheld the Departments decision to refuse the visa holder’s application for a Student visa.

27. On 15 October 2014 the visa holder lodged an appeal with the Federal Court which found in favour of the Minister on 5 November 2015. On 19 November 2015 the visa holder lodged an appeal with the Full Federal Court which again found in favour of the Minister on 11 February 2016. On 10 March 2016 the visa holder lodged an appeal with the High Court of South Australia which found in favour of the Minister on 7 April 2016 and upheld the decision originally made by the Department on 11 October 2011 to refuse the visa holder’s application for a Student visa.

28. On 7 June 2018 the visa holder was granted a Bridging B (subclass 020) visa. In order to be assessed as eligible for the grant of a Bridging B (subclass 020) visa, the visa holder was required to meet regulation 020.212 of Schedule 2 of the Migration Regulations 1994, which states:
020.212

(1) The applicant meets the requirements of subclause (2), (3), (4) or (5).

(2) An applicant meets the requirements of this subclause if:

(a) the applicant has made, in Australia, a valid application for a substantive visa of a kind that can be granted if the applicant is in Australia; and
(b) that application has not been finally determined; and

(c) the applicant wishes to leave and re-enter Australia during the processing of that application; and
(d) the Minister is satisfied that the applicant's reasons for wishing to do so are substantial.

(3) An applicant meets the requirements of this subclause if:

(a) the applicant has made in Australia, a valid application for a substantive visa of a kind that can be granted if the applicant is in Australia; and
(b) that application was refused; and
(c) either:

(i) the applicant, or the Minister, has applied, within statutory time limits, for judicial review of a decision in relation to the applicant’s substantive visa application, and\

the judicial review proceedings (including proceedings on appeal, if any) have not been completed; or

(ii) the applicant:

(A) is a member of the family unit of a person whose substantive visa application is the subject of the judicial review proceedings mentioned in subparagraph (i); and

(B) made a substantive visa application that was combined with the substantive visa application mentioned in subparagraph (i); and
(d) the applicant wishes to leave and re-enter Australia during the judicial proceedings; and
(e) the Minister is satisfied that the applicant's reasons for wishing to do so are substantial.

29. The delegate went on to find that in particular to the visa holder’s circumstances, I find that she did not meet regulation 020.212(3)(c)(i) of Schedule 2 of the Migration Regulations 1994.

30. The delegate noted that at the time of grant of the visa holder’s Bridging B (subclass 020) visa, the visa holder no longer had a judicial review in process as all judicial review proceedings had been finalised on 7 April 2016 which is prior to the grant of the visa holder’s Bridging B visa on 7 June 2018. Therefore I consider that the decision to grant the visa holder’s Bridging B visa was based, wholly or partly, on the existence of a particular fact or circumstance that did not exist and that there are grounds for cancellation of the visa holder’s Bridging B (subclass 020) visa under s116(1)(aa) of the Migration Act 1958.’

31. The Tribunal accepts that while the delegate expressed the particulars of the grounds for cancellation inelegantly (noting that it was the Adelaide Registry of the High Court of Australia who deemed the applicant’s appeal to be abandoned, which is not strictly a finding by the High Court to uphold the refusal decision), this does not change the fact that the applicant had no judicial review proceedings concerning a substantive visa when she was granted the bridging visa on 7 June 2018.

32. Prior to cancelling the bridging visa, the delegate provided the applicant with a notice of intention to consider cancellation (NOICC) letter outlining the basis for the proposed cancellation. The delegate did this by letter dated 20 November 2020. The delegate decision record summarises the applicant’s written response to the letter which was a fair summary of the applicant’s written response that was received on 25 November 2020. The full response was as follows:

33. “I read the whole letter carefully and i extreamily shocked to hear that High court gives decision in 2016 June.if it so , then where is the decision till date because i did not get it neither did immigration. Whenever i check my vivo its showing Bridging visa A in relation to student visa.

34. As i have to got Bridging visa B to travel overseas nearly three times in 2016, 2017 , 2018 and i came back on time because i gone for importent occasions and immigration gives me visa because they dn even know my decision came out and its not updated till date.

35. So, i know there is some misunderstanding or something but i am totally umaware of that because my address and email is all.same . I cant even change anyting. So pls Sir give me some more time found out why its happens and donot cancel my visa bridging visa A. So that i can find out better alternative for me. Like to apply for another visa . But as you known its not completely my fault and unawre about that pls give me some extra time of atleast 28 days because 5 days are so less to found out wts happening and why.?

36. I will be so thankfull to you if you hear me out and look up the circumstances and give me some more time.”

37. It is clear from the delegate decision record that the delegate took the applicant’s request to ‘give me some more time’ to not be a request for more time in Australia on a student visa, but a request for more time to provide reasons why the bridging visa should not be cancelled. The delegate decision record makes it clear that the delegate granted the applicant a further seven days to provide further written reasons, but none were received.

Discussion at Tribunal hearing

38. The applicant confirmed that she is a 35-year-old female citizen of India and that she holds a valid Indian passport which is due to expire in 2022.

39. She told the Tribunal that her plan when she arrived in Australia on the student visa was to study as a way to achieve permanent residency in Australia. She used a migration agent to apply for her subsequent vocational education and training sector visa. When this was refused, the migration agent assisted the applicant to lodge the review application and the applicant appeared at the Tribunal hearing.

40. When the Tribunal affirmed the refusal decision, the applicant went to the Federal Circuit Court registry and lodged the appeal herself. She did this because she did not think the migration agent had put everything forward at the Tribunal hearing. She told the Tribunal that the Federal Circuit Court made orders regarding the filing of documents and that she appeared at the hearing. When that appeal was refused, the applicant said that she appealed by herself to the Federal Court and the court gave her an order for the filing of documents and a hearing date. She said that she appeared at the hearing.

41. The applicant said that when she applied to the High Court following the Federal Court dismissing her appeal, she lodged that appeal herself. She told the Tribunal that she went to the High Court, lodged her documents, and that there was a hearing before a judge, but that the judge did not give her any decision. She was told that a decision would be sent by post or email, but she did not receive anything. She said that this was in April 2016. She did not contact the High Court to follow up her case because she had been told that she would receive a decision by email or post.

42. She told the Tribunal that she became aware that the High Court had finalised her appeal in January 2021 when she got the email from the department notifying her that it was considering cancelling her bridging visa. The Tribunal asked the applicant whether she had any documents concerning her appeal to the High Court and she said she did not. She did not keep any documents and misplaced them. She noted that she moved house in November 2016.

43. Concerning the bridging visa that is the subject of this Decision Record, the applicant said that, she told the Tribunal that she applied for that visa herself. She attended on the department to obtain the form and posted it.

44. The Tribunal asked the applicant why she did not return to India when she became aware in January 2021 that the High Court had finalised her case. She said that she remained in Australia because she hoped she would be able to get a student visa and that she needed a proper visa in order to apply for a student visa. The Tribunal explored this with the applicant. She noted that she had been to India on the Bridging B visa, and that she thought that there may be a change in her bridging visa. She repeated that she hoped to get her student visa back. She said that this was what she was fighting for. She said the High Court did not notify her of the outcome.

45. Regarding her purpose remaining in Australia, she said it was to get permanent residency in Australia. She noted that she had been in Australia for 12 years. She could not apply for another student visa because she did not have proper grounds. The Tribunal understood the applicant to meant that the visa cancellation decision meant she could not apply for a further visa of this type. The Tribunal asked the applicant why she could not return to India and then apply for another student visa to come to Australia. She said that she would then have to do everything again and queried why she should be required to do so when she could apply for a student visa onshore.

46. Regarding her personal circumstances, she told the Tribunal that she rents a house in Plympton, South Australia with two other people. Her share of the rent is $120 per week. This is the house she moved to in November 2016. She told the Tribunal that she meets her rent from saving from work. She worked at Hungry Jack’s restaurant from 2011 until she quit in October 2018. The Tribunal asked how the applicant met her living expenses since October 2018. This was from a combination of her long service leave being paid out ($4,500), and her superannuation fund releasing $10,000 to her due to the pandemic (she has $4,800 left). She also disclosed that she worked between January and March 2020 at an Indian restaurant named Oh Calcutta in Morphett Vale, South Australia but did not have any payslips because this was ‘cash in hand’ and the Tribunal noted its concern about the applicant earning income and it not being declared to relevant authorities. She has private health insurance through Medibank private which expires in January 2022.

47. She told the Tribunal that she was single and had no siblings in Australia. Her mother lives in India and her father died in 2016. Her mother lives in the Punjab state. She last travelled there in 2018 and the purpose was to see her mother and sit an IELTS exam in India. She said she did so in India because it was easy to pass the exam in India as opposed to Australia.

48. The applicant was asked whether there was anything she wanted to say about why the bridging visa should not be cancelled. She said the visa should not be cancelled because she wants to apply for further studies. She repeated that she had been in Australia for a long time and that she was ‘still studying.’ She said she will return to India if she does not get a proper visa, but that she had completed all her studies in Australia.

49. Picking up on the claimed further studies, the Tribunal asked about the qualifications and when they were achieved. The applicant said that she obtained a Diploma of Management in August 2014, a Diploma of Marketing in October 2015, an Advanced Diploma of Marketing in October 2015, and that she obtained two Certificate III certifications in Individual Sports for Home and Community Services and in Individual Sports for Disability.

50. She said that her last and most recent qualification was a certificate in first aid and manual handling. This was in September 2020. The certificate in manual handling relates to equipment used in aged care. She told the Tribunal that she undertook placements in aged care facilities through obtaining her certificates and did volunteer work at aged care homes because she had no employment.

FINDINGS AND REASONS

51. Having considered all the circumstances, including what the applicant told the Tribunal at the Tribunal hearing, the Tribunal concludes that the decision to cancel the applicant’s bridging visa should be affirmed.

Does the ground for cancellation exist?

52. A visa may be cancelled under s.116(1)(aa) if the decision to grant the visa was based, wholly or partly, on the existence of a particular fact or circumstance, and that fact or circumstance did not exist;

53. The bridging visa granted on 7 June 2018 was granted on the basis that the applicant had outstanding migration matters in Australia. Specifically, it was granted on the basis that the applicant’s judicial review proceedings had not been completed. However, as conceded by the applicant and as demonstrated by the records, the applicant’s special leave application to the High Court was deemed abandoned by letter of 16 May 2016 as the applicant had not complied with Rule 41 of the High Court Rules by 4pm on 7 April 2016.

54. The applicant’s explanation that she was aware of this outcome does not change the fact that the grounds upon which she was granted the bridging visa on 7 June 2018 did not exist.

55. For the above reasons, the Tribunal is satisfied that the ground for cancellation in s.116(1)(aa) exists. As that ground does not require mandatory cancellation under s.116(3), the Tribunal must proceed to consider whether the visa should be cancelled.

Consideration of discretion

56. There are no matters specified in the Act or Regulations that must be considered in the exercise of this discretion. The Tribunal has had regard to the circumstances of this case, including matters raised by the applicant, and matters in the Department’s Procedures Advice Manual (PAM3) ‘General visa cancellation powers’.

Purpose of the bridging visa

57. The Tribunal is conscious of the fact that it is dealing with cancellation of a bridging visa. A bridging visa is granted to allow a non-citizen to regularise their migration status in Australia while they wait for their migration matters to conclude or until the non-citizen can make arrangements to depart Australia. Given the current pandemic disrupting international travel, and the fact that it can be many years from when a visa application to be finally determined if there is a review application and subsequent litigation, cancelling a bridging visa can have the very real consequence of a person remaining unlawfully in the community while their immigration matters are finalised, or that person being detained in immigration detention, often for many years.

58. However, in contrast to the majority of bridging visa cancellations which are reviewed by the Tribunal, there is no substantive visa application that remains outstanding. For example, where someone has applied for a substantive visa that has not been finally determined by the department or the Tribunal, cancellation of a bridging visa would mean that the applicant would remain in Australia as an unlawful non-citizen while the applicant waited for the substantive visa to be finally determined. An applicant who has had a substantive visa finally determined but lodged judicial review proceedings that had not been concluded would also find themselves in this situation. The fact that the applicant would remain in Australia as an unlawful non-citizen and liable to deportation, without an ability to work (if permitted), or be entitled to a Medicare card, all while waiting for a decision to be made in respect of a substantive visa application.

59. The applicant is not such a person. She has no outstanding substantive visa application and the bridging visa application was not granted on departure grounds. Therefore, there is no meaningful reason for the applicant to continue to have a bridging visa but the very purpose of the bridging visa does not exist. If the Tribunal were to exercise its discretion to not cancel the bridging visa and decided to remit the matter to the department, it would result in the ludicrous situation of the applicant remaining in Australia for an indefinite period on a bridging visa. It cannot be the intention of the legislature to allow for such circumstances to occur, as bridging visas are temporary visas connected with outstanding migration matters.

60. With that in mind, the Tribunal is satisfied that there are very strong grounds to uphold the bridging visa cancellation.

Purpose of the applicant’s travel and stay in Australia

61. The applicant told the Tribunal that her purpose travelling to and remaining in Australia was for study, with an intention of applying for permanent residency. The Tribunal accepts that the applicant came to Australia with that intention and applied for a subsequent student visa because she intended to continue her study. The fact that the applicant has remained in Australia has demonstrated that she wished to continue study with a long view to obtaining permanent residency in Australia.

Compliance with the conditions attached to the bridging visa under review

62. The Tribunal also accepts that there is no evidence that the applicant has not complied with conditions 8105 and 8501.

Compliance with visa conditions generally

63. The Tribunal also accepts that there is no evidence that the applicant has not complied with conditions 8101, 8401, 8506, 8207 and 8564 which were imposed on the bridging visa granted on 29 January 2021 in connection with the review application to the Tribunal concerning the cancellation decision. Further, the Tribunal is not aware of any claim that the applicant has not previously complied with any visa conditions.

Degree of hardship that may be caused as a result of the cancellation decision

64. The Tribunal accepts that the applicant has made a life for herself in Australia during the past 12 years in Australia. But the Tribunal reminds itself that a bridging visa is not a substantive visa. A bridging visa is a temporary visa and there should be no expectation by the applicant that holding a bridging visa means that she can remain in Australia indefinitely.

65. Apart from the applicant expressing a desire to lodge another student visa application in Australia instead of doing so in India, there is no demonstrated hardship that would result in upholding the bridging visa cancellation. The Tribunal does not accept that there is a material difference in applying for a student visa while in Australia or offshore concerning the visa itself.

Circumstances in which the cancellation arose

66. There is not enough information to demonstrate that the applicant was deliberately dishonest and applied for the bridging visa knowing that the judicial review proceedings had concluded in 2016. The Tribunal is conscious that the applicant conducted the litigation concerning her student visa refusal herself and that she may have not been fully aware of what was required by the High Court. Further, while it could be argued that the applicant has been less than attentive to her migration matters, the Tribunal cannot conclude that the applicant was aware that her High Court proceedings had concluded, and that she ignored this fact, and decided to remain in Australia knowing full well that she had no ongoing migration matters, and then proceeded to claim falsely in her bridging visa application form that the matters were ongoing.

67. That being said, it is reasonable to expect the applicant to take steps to make herself aware of her current migration situation. A prudent applicant would have contacted the High Court registry to find out the status of her case before lodging her bridging visa application. It is not the job of the department to keep her advised of her own court case.

Past and present behaviour of the applicant towards the department

68. There is no evidence that the applicant has engaged in any bad behaviour towards the department.

Whether there would be consequential cancellations under s.140 of the Act

69. The applicant was the only person who was granted the bridging visa on the basis that she had outstanding migration matters. Accordingly, there will be no consequential visa cancellations as a result of upholding the decision to cancel the applicant’s bridging visa.

Mandatory legal consequences as a result of the cancellation decision

70. As a result of the upholding the bridging visa cancellation decision, she would become an unlawful non-citizen in Australia once her new bridging visa (granted as a result of the review application to the Tribunal) ceased. However, the existence of that bridging visa will allow sufficient time for the applicant to make arrangements to depart Australia or take any action permitted under the Act concerning her status. Further, if the applicant does not do so and chooses to remain in Australia and becomes an unlawful non-citizen, that will be a logical consequence of the operation of Australia’s migration laws. After all, there is an expectation that those without a lawful basis to be in Australia depart the country.

71. Further, as a result of upholding the decision to uphold the applicant’s visa cancellation, the applicant would be subject to s.48 of the Act. This prohibits the applicant from applying for certain types of visas while in Australia. However, the Tribunal notes that the applicant would be subject to s.48 of the Act in any event (albeit to a lesser extent concerning the types of visas she could apply for) as a result of the decision to refuse her the student visa.

Whether Australia would be in breach of any international obligations as a result of the cancellation decision

72. The applicant did not claim that Australia would be in breach of any international obligations because of the cancellation decision. There is no evidence to support such a claim.

CONCLUSION

73. The Tribunal has considered whether it should uphold the cancellation decision. The applicant exercised the rights given to her under the Act to seek a review of the decision to refuse the further vocational education and training sector visa. She was granted a bridging visa to allow her to remain temporarily in Australia for this purpose. However, as made clear, the litigation connected with that refusal decision ceased in May 2016.

74. The applicant may not wish to return to India and apply offshore for a student visa. She may not wish to ‘start again.’ However, it is important to remember that the applicant should not have been in Australia after the High Court had finalised the case connected with her student visa refusal decision. While it is regrettable that the applicant was not aware about what happened with her High Court case until January 2021, she should have checked the status of that case before she lodged the bridging visa in June 2018.

75. The applicant has not persuaded the Tribunal that it should exercise its discretion to not cancel the bridging visa granted in June 2018. As noted earlier in this decision, there are good policy reasons for upholding the visa cancellation decision. To set aside the cancellation decision concerning the bridging visa when the basis of the grant of the visa was that the applicant had ongoing migration matters, would result in the curious situation of the applicant being permitted to remain in Australia indefinitely on bridging visa (which is a temporary visa) when she had no ongoing migration matters.

76. The fact that the applicant has been in Australia for around 12 years, has done study and received qualifications, has volunteered in aged care homes for the course of placements connected with obtaining qualifications, and would prefer to lodge another visa application onshore instead of offshore does not outweigh the reasons to uphold the bridging visa cancellation.

77. When the Tribunal considers the circumstances as a whole, the Tribunal concludes that the bridging visa should be cancelled.

DECISION

78. The Tribunal affirms the decision to cancel the applicant’s Subclass 020 (Bridging B) visa.

Nathan Goetz
Member