1815327 (Migration)

This matter concerned an appeal by a visa holder against the cancellation of their Subclass 155 (Five Year Resident Return) visa. The dispute arose from allegations that the applicant had failed to provide correct information in a previous Partner visa application, specifically by using a different identity to enter Australia after a prior visa refusal and residing in Australia as an unlawful non-citizen. The Tribunal was required to determine whether the applicant had indeed failed to comply with the relevant provisions of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth) and, if so, whether the cancellation of the visa was warranted.

The Tribunal considered whether the applicant had contravened section 101 of the Act by failing to answer all questions and providing incorrect answers in their visa application. The applicant’s agent acknowledged that certain answers were incorrect, and the applicant herself admitted to using her cousin's name and passport to enter Australia after a Visitor visa refusal. Evidence, including a facial recognition report, indicated the applicant had previously been in Australia under a different name. The Tribunal found that the notice issued under section 107 of the Act complied with statutory requirements and that the applicant had provided incorrect information and failed to answer all questions as required.

Applying the principles of section 100 of the Act, which states that an answer is incorrect even if the person did not know it was incorrect, the Tribunal concluded that the applicant had failed to comply with section 101. The Tribunal also considered the applicant's explanation of misunderstanding the questions and noted that she had subsequently provided a Notification of Incorrect Answers. Despite these submissions, the Tribunal affirmed the delegate's decision to cancel the visa, finding that the non-compliance was established and that, having regard to all relevant circumstances, cancellation was the appropriate course of action.