1712464 (Migration)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal affirmed the decision to cancel the visa of Ms. A, the applicant. The dispute concerned the applicant's Subclass 100 (Spouse) visa, which had been granted based on her relationship with her sponsor, Mr. B. The Tribunal was required to consider whether the applicant had provided incorrect information in her visa application and whether her relationship with Mr. B had ceased before the visa was granted, as well as the credibility of evidence provided by a witness, Mr. C.

The primary legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the applicant had failed to notify the Department of changes in her circumstances, specifically the cessation of her genuine spousal relationship with Mr. B, and whether the decision to grant her visa was based on incorrect information. The Tribunal also considered the conflicting evidence regarding the timeline of the applicant's relationship with Mr. B and Mr. C, and the credibility of Mr. C's statements. Furthermore, the Tribunal had to assess the impact of the cancellation on the best interests of children and any international obligations, although these aspects were not elaborated upon in the provided text.

The Tribunal reasoned that the applicant's statutory declaration, made on 23 April 2014, constituted an answer to a question on her visa application, pursuant to section 99 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth). This declaration stated that she and Mr. B could not live apart and loved each other. However, this was contradicted by Mr. B's subsequent statement in his divorce application, filed a week after the declaration, that the reason for divorce was the applicant's non-cohabitation. Additionally, Mr. C provided evidence suggesting he had been in a relationship with the applicant since February-March 2014, which predated the applicant's declaration of a genuine and continuing relationship with Mr. B. Despite submissions that the applicant's declaration was unsworn, the Tribunal found it to be information provided for the purposes of section 99. The Tribunal ultimately affirmed the cancellation decision.