1706880 (Migration)

1706880 (Migration) [2019] AATA 1283 (8 April 2019)
DECISION RECORD
DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division
CASE NUMBER: 1706880
MEMBER:Tigiilagi Eteuati
DATE:8 April 2019
PLACE OF DECISION: Brisbane
DECISION:The Tribunal affirms the decision to cancel the applicant’s Subclass 572 Vocational Education and Training Sector visa.
Statement made on 08 April 2019 at 10:14pm

CATCHWORDS
MIGRATION – cancellation – Student (Temporary) (Class TU) visa – Subclass 572 (Vocational Education and Training Sector) – bogus document – incorrect information in visa application – academic qualification – applicant didn't genuinely intend to stay temporarily – pending protection visa application – financial capacity to complete study in Australia – decision under review affirmed
LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss 5(1), 103, 107, 109
Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth), r 2.41
CASES
MIAC v Khadgi (2010) 190 FCR 248
Any references appearing in square brackets indicate that information has been omitted from this decision pursuant to section 378 of the Migration Act 1958 and replaced with generic information.

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 to cancel the applicant’s Subclass 572 Vocational Education and Training Sector visa under s.109(1) of the Migration Act 1958 (the Act).
The delegate cancelled the visa on the basis that the applicant had provided a bogus document to the Department in an application for a visa. The issue in the present case is whether that ground for cancellation is made out, and if so, whether the visa should be cancelled.
The applicant appeared before the Tribunal on 31 July 2018 to give evidence and present arguments. The Tribunal hearing was conducted with the assistance of an interpreter in the Yoruba and English languages.
The applicant was represented in relation to the review by his registered migration agent.
For the following reasons, the Tribunal has concluded that the decision to cancel the applicant’s visa should be affirmed.
CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE
Section 109(1) of the Act allows the Minister to cancel a visa if the visa holder has failed to comply with ss.101, 102, 103, 104, 105 or 107(2) of the Act. Broadly speaking, these sections require non-citizens to provide correct information in their visa applications and passenger cards, not to provide bogus documents and to notify the Department of any incorrect information of which they become aware and of any relevant changes in circumstances.
The exercise of the cancellation power under s.109 of the Act is conditional on the Minister issuing a valid notice to the visa holder under s.107 of the Act, providing particulars of the alleged non-compliance. Where a notice is issued that does not comply with the requirements in s.107, the power to cancel the visa does not arise. Extracts of the Act relevant to this case are attached to this decision.
In the present matter, the Tribunal is satisfied that the delegate had reached the necessary state of mind to engage s.107 and that the notice issued under s.107 complied with the statutory requirements.
Was there non-compliance as described in the s.107 notice?
The issue before the Tribunal is whether there was non-compliance in the way described in the s.107 notice, being the manner particularised in the notice, and if so, whether the visa should be cancelled. The non-compliance identified and particularised in the s.107 notice was non-compliance with s.103 of the Act in the following respects:
·In his application for a Student visa, the applicant provided the Department with a National Diploma in Science Laboratory Technology from Lagos State Polytechnic which indicated that the applicant achieved that qualification in August 2011. The s.107 notice indicated that in 2016 Lagos State Polytechnic advised the Department that the applicant had never been a student with them and that the national diploma was a forged document.
Section 103 of the Act provides:
“A non-citizen must not give, present, produce or provide to an officer, an authorised system, the Minister, the Immigration Assessment Authority, or the Tribunal performing a function or purpose under this Act, a bogus document or cause such a document to be so given, presented, produced or provided.”
Section 5(1) of the Act defines “bogus document” as follows:
“bogus document " , in relation to a person, means a document that the Minister reasonably suspects is a document that:
(a) purports to have been, but was not, issued in respect of the person; or
(b) is counterfeit or has been altered by a person who does not have authority to do so; or
(c) was obtained because of a false or misleading statement, whether or not made knowingly. “
In response to the s.107 notice, the applicant conceded that he had never attended Lagos State Polytechnic and that the diploma that he says was provided on his behalf was a fake document.
The applicant conceded that there was non-compliance by the applicant in the way described in the s.107 notice and the Tribunal finds that there was non-compliance with s.103 of the Act by the applicant in the way described in the s.107 notice.
Should the visa be cancelled?
The applicant claimed that in 2015 he wished to obtain a Student visa to study in Australia. He said that, at the time, he feared for his life because of a dispute over a kingship in Nigeria as he was a male member of one of the royal families which was in dispute with another family as to who was the rightful heir to the kingship. He said at the time that he applied for the visa, he feared for his life and had no intention of ever returning to Nigeria. Rather, he planned to travel to Australia and remain here permanently.
The applicant said that he approached an agent in Nigeria who was known to obtain visas for those wishing to study overseas. He said that he spoke with this man about his desire to study in Australia and provided him with documents to lodge in support of the application. The applicant said that these documents included his Nigerian passport, birth certificate, his IELTS English language results and high school certificate.
The applicant said that he applied for a subclass 572 visa sometime in the first half of 2015 but that this application was refused in mid-2015. He said that he found out that the application had been refused as he received notification from the Department of the refusal by email. The applicant said that he read the decision refusing him a visa.
The applicant applied again for a subclass 572 visa in August 2015, he claims through the same agent, using the same material which he had provided the agent on the first occasion. The applicant was granted a subclass 572 visa on 15 September 2015.
In response to the s.107 notice the applicant provided a copy of a letter to the applicant from the Registrar of [Institute 1] dated 18 September 2015, indicating that the applicant had met the requirements for [Qualification 1] with effect from November 2014.
In his response to the s.107 notice, the applicant claimed that he advised the Nigerian agent that he held [Qualification 1]. He claimed that the Nigerian agent advised him that he was not required to provide that document to the Department, suggesting that he did not provide that document to the agent. However at the hearing, the applicant indicated that the Nigerian agent had not advised him of this, that he had provided the letter mentioned above dated 18 September 2015 regarding [Qualification 1] to the agent and assumed that the agent provided that document to the Department with his application form.
The problem with this explanation is that the document that the applicant said that he gave to his Nigerian agent was dated 18 September 2015, and thus post-dated both of his applications for Student visas in 2015.
In addition, at the hearing, the applicant repeatedly said that he had attained [Qualification 1] in 2013 whereas the letter dated 18 September 2015 indicated that the applicant had attained the diploma in November 2014.
The applicant had attained an IELTS English language score of 6 overall prior to coming to Australia. Indeed, he told the Tribunal that he provided these results to the Nigerian agent to be lodged with his Student visa application. Notwithstanding the applicant’s advanced English language ability the applicant told the Tribunal that he never read the completed Student visa application form for either of his two Student visa applications in 2015. He said that he simply trusted the Nigerian agent. The applicant acknowledged that he had signed a declaration in the application forms declaring that he had read the form and that all of the information he provided with his application was complete, correct, and up-to-date in every detail.
The Tribunal notes that the declaration that the applicant signed also provides:
“I understand that if any fraudulent documents or false or misleading information has been provided with this application, or if I fail to satisfy the Minister of my identity, my application may be refused and I, and any other members of my family unit, may become unable to be granted a visa for specified periods of time.
If the documents are found to be fraudulent or information to be incorrect after the grant of the visa, the visa made subsequently be cancelled.”
The Tribunal notes that with his second visa application, the one that was successful, the applicant signed a checklist indicating that he had provided all the necessary documentation requested on the checklist.
Notwithstanding this, the applicant indicated that he did not read the applications and did not check the documentation which was attached to it. He attributed this to his trust in the agent and on stupidity.
The Tribunal expressed a degree of disbelief that the applicant relied on the Nigerian agent to lodge his first visa application, which the applicant said that he did not read, and that was refused, and yet he claimed that notwithstanding the refusal of the first application that the applicant again signed the second application without reading the application or the attached documents.
The applicant said that he had read the decision to refuse the first visa application and that there was nothing in that decision which indicated that the agent had done anything wrong. In fact, at the hearing, the applicant indicated that there was nothing in the decision to refuse his first application which indicated that was any fraud or wrongdoing on the Nigerian agent agent’s part.
The applicant asserted, both in the response to the s.107 notice and before the Tribunal, that the first time that he was aware of the fraudulent certificate from Lagos State Polytechnic was when he received the s.107 notice.
At the hearing before the Tribunal, the applicant indicated that not only was [Qualification 1] a fraudulent document, almost all the other documents that had been submitted with his applications were fraudulent. They included detailed course results from Lagos State Polytechnic for each semester for two years purportedly showing the grades achieved in each unit by the applicant. They also included a resume for the applicant which provided various false information including that the applicant held a diploma in science laboratory technology which he gained in August 2011 and that he had been employed by Crown Crest Clinic from 2012 at 2015 as an assistant laboratory technician. They also included a statement of purpose purportedly made by the applicant which also contained various false information including that the applicant completed studies in science laboratory technology, that he had a mentally ill brother and which described the relevance of his false qualifications to his proposed course of study in Australia. The documents also included also a letter from Crown Crest Clinic, his purported employer, which indicated that the applicant had been employed at the clinic since 2012 as an assistant laboratory technician.
The applicant told the Tribunal that all of this information was false and that these documents were fake documents. He said that he had never attended Lagos State Polytechnic, did not have a mentally ill brother, did not hold a qualification in science laboratory technology, and never heard of Crown Crest Clinic, and had never worked for them as an assistant laboratory technician.
The Tribunal observes that the level of deception involved in fabricating the narrative and the documents provided to the Department with these applications is astounding.
The applicant said that he had no involvement in advancing the false narrative presented in his application forms or any of the false documents. As mentioned previously, the applicant said that he provided basic information to the agent and that the agent was fully responsible for fabricating the narrative and the documents provided on his behalf.
The Tribunal put to the applicant in the required way, the decision of the Minister’s delegate to refuse him a Student visa in 2015. That decision, which the applicant said that he had carefully read, clearly states throughout the decision that the applicant had claimed that he obtained a national diploma in science laboratory technology in August 2011 and that he was currently employed as an assistant laboratory technology technician in Nigeria.
That information clearly suggests that the applicant’s claim that he was completely unaware that his Nigerian agent had claimed that he held a national diploma in science laboratory technology until he received the s.107 notice, is false.
The applicant would have known before he made the second application, which was ultimately successful, that the first application included claims that the applicant was the holder of a national diploma in science laboratory technology and was employed as a laboratory technician in Nigeria. Yet knowing this, the applicant claims that he was still content for his Nigerian agent to lodge the second application.
The Tribunal considers that the most beneficial interpretation of the above facts and claims, is that when the Nigerian agent lodged the first application, the applicant did not know that the agent had constructed a completely false narrative and accompanying documents indicating that the applicant held a national diploma in science laboratory technology and had been employed as a laboratory technician.
However, it is clear that once the applicant read the decision to refuse him a Student visa, he knew that this false narrative and false documents had been lodged on his behalf. Therefore, on the most beneficial interpretation, the applicant acquiesced to the Nigerian agent advancing the false narrative and providing false documents to the Department when he lodged the second application.
However, the Tribunal does not accept the applicant’s claim that an agent in Nigeria was responsible for concocting a false narrative and fraudulent documents in support of the applicant’s application. The more obvious and more believable interpretation of the facts is that it was the applicant himself who did so. First, the name of the relevant agent that the applicant provided in response to the s.107 notice was not included in the application form. Rather, another agent’s name was included in that form. Secondly, there is no documentary evidence that the Nigerian agent lodged the applications. The applicant says the reason for this is because he paid cash for the applications and never communicated with the agent in writing or electronically, a claim which is difficult to believe and is not accepted given that the applicant had an email address which he used for the purpose of receiving communications. Thirdly, the applicant told the Tribunal that he had provided the letter dated

18 September 2015 to the agent in early 2015 and he assumed that this was provided to the Department. Of course as that letter post-dated the application, that claim is simply false. Further, at the hearing the applicant repeatedly indicated that he completed the course in 2013, whereas according to the letter dated 18 September 2015, he met the requirements for the course in November 2014. The Tribunal considers that this information also supports the Tribunal’s conclusion that the applicant never in fact attained [Qualification 1] from [Institute 1]. Given that the applicant has admitted that almost all of the documents provided by the applicant to the Department are fabrications containing false information, the Tribunal does not accept that the letter from [Institute 1] on 18 September 2015 is authentic or that the applicant holds [Qualification 1].
As the Tribunal has decided that there was non-compliance in the way described in the notice given to the applicant under s.107 of the Act, it is necessary to consider whether the visa should be cancelled pursuant to s.109(1). Cancellation in this context is discretionary, as there are no mandatory cancellation circumstances prescribed under s.109(2).
In exercising this power, the Tribunal must consider the applicant’s response (if any) to the s.107 notice about the non-compliance, and have regard to any prescribed circumstances: s.109(1)(b) and (c). The prescribed circumstances are set out in r.2.41 of the Regulations. Briefly, they are:
· the correct information
The correct information is that the applicant does not hold a National Diploma of Science Laboratory Technology from Lagos State Polytechnic. The Tribunal has also considered that the applicant provided the Department with various false and fraudulent documents as outlined above.
· the content of the genuine document (if any)
The Tribunal does not accept that the applicant has provided the Department or the Tribunal with any genuine document relating to his education in Nigeria.
· whether the decision to grant a visa or immigration clear the visa holder was based, wholly or partly, on incorrect information or a bogus document
The applicant has argued that the bogus document which was referred to in the s.107 notice was not a requirement for the grant of the visa and was not determinative of whether the applicant genuinely intended to stay temporarily in Australia for the purpose of study.
While both of these statements may be true, the Tribunal considers that the applicant’s argument is misconceived. The applicant provided the false document to the Department in support of his application. The purpose of providing that document, and the numerous other fabricated documents that the applicant provided was, among other things, to show that he was a genuine student and a genuine temporary entrant. Relevant to those matters was the applicant’s academic and employment history. Indeed, a fake statement was provided by the applicant in which he outlined the relevance of his past studies and experience to his proposed course of study in Australia. If the applicant had provided none of this information to the Department, it is very unlikely that the delegate would have been satisfied that the applicant met the relevant criteria for the grant of the visa.
In addition, if the delegate had been aware that the applicant had provided bogus documents to the Department it is very likely that he would not have met the requirements for the grant of the visa as he would have fallen foul of Public Interest Criteria 4020 regarding the provision of false documents to the Department, and possibly Public Interest Criteria 4001 relating to the applicant’s character.
· the circumstances in which the non-compliance occurred
The circumstances in which the non-compliance occurred have been outlined above. The applicant has claimed that the Nigerian agent was solely responsible for providing the bogus document to the Department but the Tribunal has found that the applicant deliberately provided the bogus document, and a number other bogus documents to the Department.
· the present circumstances of the visa holder

The applicant arrived in Australia in October 2015. In response to the s.107 notice the applicant indicated that he completed [Qualification 2] in [specified discipline] in July 2016. At the hearing, the applicant indicated that he began [Qualification 3] in the beginning of 2017. However, the applicant said that he dropped out of that course in the second half of 2017 because of stress and anxiety caused as a result of his unresolved immigration status. The applicant has indicated that he does not have work rights and that he is fully supported by his spouse, with whom he registered a civil partnership at the end of July 2017 and married in January 2018.
The applicant has applied to the Department for a Protection visa and holds a Bridging visa while awaiting the outcomes of this matter and his Protection visa application. The applicant has indicated that he is subject to a “no work” condition on his Bridging visa. The applicant says that if he is successful in having the cancellation decision set aside, he will be able to work and help to provide for himself and his wife.
· the subsequent behaviour of the visa holder concerning his or her obligations under Subdivision C of Division 3 of Part 2 of the Act
While there does not appear to be any specific non-compliance with Subdivision C of Division 3 of Part 2 of the Act, the Tribunal considers that the applicant has continued to provide the Department and the Tribunal with false information in relation to the initial breach as described above.
· any other instances of non-compliance by the visa holder known to the Minister
While there does not appear to be any specific non-compliance with Subdivision C of Division 3 of Part 2 of the Act, the Tribunal considers that the applicant has continued to provide the Department and the Tribunal with false information in relation to the initial breach as described above.
· the time that has elapsed since the non-compliance
The bogus document was provided to the Department in August 2015. It is now April 2019.
· any breaches of the law since the non-compliance and the seriousness of those breaches
There is no evidence that the applicant has been convicted of any breaches of the law since the non-compliance.
· any contribution made by the holder to the community.
The applicant has indicated that he is involved in the church in Australia and participates in community oriented outreach activities undertaken by the church. The applicant has also indicated that at some point in the future he wishes to resume his [Qualification 3] studies and to contribute to the community [by working in a related field].
While these factors must be considered, they do not represent an exhaustive statement of the circumstances that might properly be considered to be relevant in any given case: MIAC v Khadgi (2010) 190 FCR 248. The Tribunal may also have regard to lawful government policy. The relevant policy is set out in the Department’s Procedural Advice Manual PAM3 ‘General visa cancellation powers’, which refers to matters such as the consequences of cancelling the visa, international obligations and any other relevant matters.
If the applicant’s visa remains cancelled he will be able to remain in Australia until his Protection visa application is finally determined. To be clear, if the decision to cancel the applicant’s Student visa is affirmed this will not mean that he is removed from Australia. Further, a decision to affirm the cancellation decision will not result in the consequential cancellation of a visa held by anyone else.
While the applicant has made a Protection visa application and Australia may potentially owe protection obligations in relation to the applicant, a decision to affirm the cancellation decision will not result in a breach of Australia’s international obligations. That is because whether the applicant is allowed to remain permanently in Australia on a Protection visa will depend on the Minister’s assessment of whether the applicant meets the criteria for a Protection visa and thus whether Australia has protection obligations in respect of the applicant.
If the applicant’s visa had not been cancelled it would have ceased on 30 April 2020. Therefore, if the Tribunal sets aside the cancellation decision the applicant will hold a Student visa for another year. Therefore, the applicant’s ability to remain in Australia permanently appears to be dependent on the outcome of his application for a Protection visa, and potentially any Partner visa application that the applicant may make in the future. Thus, the utility of the current proceedings appears to be primarily that, if the applicant is successful, he will be able to work for a maximum of 40 hours a fortnight, whereas he does not currently have work rights. Therefore, any hardship that the applicant or his wife may face if the decision is affirmed appears to be primarily that the applicant may not be able to work until his Protection visa application is determined. The Tribunal has taken this into consideration in the exercise of its discretion.
The Tribunal has considered that, on the applicant’s evidence, he never met the genuine temporary entrant criteria when he applied for the Student visa because, at the time, he intended to live in Australia permanently rather than to stay temporarily for the purpose of study.
Further, while the applicant does not have a “no study” condition attached to his Bridging visa, he ceased studying in the second half of 2017. Thus, while the applicant seeks for a Student visa to be reinstated, he is not studying and it appears that he is not enrolled in a registered course in Australia. If the cancellation decision was set aside and the applicant continues to fail to study and fails to be enrolled in a registered course, the Student visa would be liable to be cancelled. In addition, the applicant told the Tribunal that his brother, a [Occupation 1] in [Country 1], who had guaranteed to provide for all the applicant’s expenses in Australia, has recently begun [further] studies and may be unable to provide financially for the applicant in Australia. This may mean that the applicant may not be able to meet his living expenses and tuition fees. This in turn could mean that the applicant would be unable to successfully undertake an education course in Australia which is the purpose of a Student visa.
The Tribunal has found that the applicant deliberately provide incorrect information and bogus documents to the Department to improve his chances of being granted a visa for Australia. Australia relies heavily on visa applicants being truthful and providing authentic documents in order to determine whether a person should be granted the privilege of entry and stay in Australia. Australia’s ability to regulate, in the national interest, the coming into, and presence in, Australia of non-citizens, is compromised where visa applicants provide incorrect information and bogus documents to the Department. The applicant’s actions in providing incorrect information and bogus documents to the Department and the Tribunal are very serious. Given that the Tribunal has found that the applicant has provided incorrect information and bogus documents to the Department and the Tribunal, the Tribunal cannot be satisfied that the applicant will not continue to provide incorrect information and bogus documents to the Australian government in the future.
The Tribunal has decided that there was non-compliance by the applicant in the way described in the notice given under s.107 of the Act. Further, having regard to all the relevant circumstances, as discussed above, the Tribunal concludes that the visa should be cancelled.
DECISION
The Tribunal affirms the decision to cancel the applicant’s Subclass 500 (Student) visa.
Tigiilagi Eteuati
Member

ATTACHMENT – Migration Act 1958 (extracts)
5Interpretation
(1)In this Act, unless the contrary intention appears:
bogus document, in relation to a person, means a document that the Minister reasonably suspects is a document that:
(a)      purports to have been, but was not, issued in respect of the person; or
(b)     is counterfeit or has been altered by a person who does not have authority to do so; or
(c)      was obtained because of a false or misleading statement, whether or not made knowingly.
97Interpretation
In this Subdivision:
application form, in relation to a non‑citizen, means a form on which a non‑citizen applies for a visa, being a form that regulations made for the purposes of section 46 allow to be used for making the application.
passenger card has the meaning given by subsection 506(2) and, for the purposes of section 115, includes any document provided for by regulations under paragraph 504(1)(c).
Note:Bogus document is defined in subsection 5(1).
98Completion of visa application
A non‑citizen who does not fill in his or her application form or passenger card is taken to do so if he or she causes it to be filled in or if it is otherwise filled in on his or her behalf.
99Information is answer
Any information that a non‑citizen gives or provides, causes to be given or provided, or that is given or provided on his or her behalf, to the Minister, an officer, an authorised system, a person or the Tribunal, or the Immigration Assessment authority, reviewing a decision under this Act in relation to the non‑citizen’s application for a visa is taken for the purposes of section 100, paragraphs 101(b) and 102(b) and sections 104 and 105 to be an answer to a question in the non‑citizen’s application form, whether the information is given or provided orally or in writing and whether at an interview or otherwise.
100Incorrect answers
For the purposes of this Subdivision, an answer to a question is incorrect even though the person who gave or provided the answer, or caused the answer to be given or provided, did not know that it was incorrect.
101Visa applications to be correct
A non‑citizen must fill in or complete his or her application form in such a way that:
(a)all questions on it are answered; and
(b)no incorrect answers are given or provided.
107Notice of incorrect applications
(1)If the Minister considers that the holder of a visa who has been immigration cleared (whether or not because of that visa) did not comply with section 101, 102, 103, 104 or 105 or with subsection (2) in a response to a notice under this section, the Minister may give the holder a notice:
(a)      giving particulars of the possible non‑compliance; and
(b)     stating that, within a period stated in the notice as mentioned in subsection (1A), the holder may give the Minister a written response to the notice that:
(i)if the holder disputes that there was non‑compliance:
(A)shows that there was compliance; and
(B)in case the Minister decides under section 108 that, in spite of the statement under sub‑subparagraph (A), there was non‑compliance—shows cause why the visa should not be cancelled; or
(ii)if the holder accepts that there was non‑compliance:
(A)give reasons for the non‑compliance; and
(B)shows cause why the visa should not be cancelled; and
(c)      stating that the Minister will consider cancelling the visa:
(i)if the holder gives the Minister oral or written notice, within the period stated as mentioned in subsection (1A), that he or she will not give a written response—when that notice is given; or
(ii)if the holder gives the Minister a written response within that period—when the response is given; or
(iii)otherwise—at the end of that period; and
(d)     setting out the effect of sections 108, 109, 111 and 112; and
(e)      informing the holder that the holder’s obligations under section 104 or 105 are not affected by the notice under this section; and
(f)      requiring the holder:
(i)to tell the Minister the address at which the holder is living; and
(ii)if the holder changes that address before the Minister notifies the holder of the Minister’s decision on whether there was non‑compliance by the holder—to tell the Minister the changed address.
(1A)The period to be stated in the notice under subsection (1) must be:
(a)      in respect of the holder of a temporary visa—the period prescribed by the regulations or, if no period is prescribed, a reasonable period; or
(b)     otherwise—14 days.
(1B)Regulations prescribing a period for the purposes of paragraph (1A)(a) may prescribe different periods and state when a particular period is to apply, which, without limiting the generality of the power, may be to:
(a)      visas of a stated class; or
(b)     visa holders in stated circumstances; or
(c)      visa holders in a stated class of people (who may be visa holders in a particular place); or
(d)     visa holders in a stated class of people (who may be visa holders in a particular place) in stated circumstances.
(2)If the visa holder responds to the notice, he or she must do so without making any incorrect statement.
108Decision about non‑compliance
The Minister is to:
(a)consider any response given by a visa holder in the way required by paragraph 107(1)(b); and
(b)decide whether there was non‑compliance by the visa holder in the way described in the notice.
109Cancellation of visa if information incorrect
(1)The Minister, after:
(a)      deciding under section 108 that there was non‑compliance by the holder of a visa; and
(b)     considering any response to the notice about the non‑compliance given in a way required by paragraph 107(1)(b); and
(c)      having regard to any prescribed circumstances;
may cancel the visa.
(2)If the Minister may cancel a visa under subsection (1), the Minister must do so if there exist circumstances declared by the regulations to be circumstances in which a visa must be cancelled.

[2019] AATA 1283

8 April 2019

Key Legal Topics

Areas of Law

Immigration

Administrative Law

Legal Concepts

Judicial Review

Procedural Fairness

Statutory Construction

Natural Justice