1917883 (Migration)

This matter concerned an appeal by a visa holder against the cancellation of her Subclass 155 (Five Year Resident Return) visa. The dispute arose from allegations that the applicant had provided incorrect information in previous visa applications, specifically concerning her relationship status and the parentage of her daughter. The Tribunal was tasked with determining whether the visa cancellation was justified.

The primary legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the applicant had failed to comply with section 101 of the Migration Act 1958, which requires visa applications to be completed correctly, and whether the notice issued under section 107 of the Act, detailing the alleged non-compliance, was valid. The Tribunal also had to consider whether, having found non-compliance, the visa should be cancelled.

The Tribunal found that the delegate had properly engaged section 107 and that the notice issued complied with statutory requirements. It was satisfied that the applicant had provided incorrect information in her applications for a Prospective Marriage visa and subsequent Partner visas, specifically regarding her de facto relationship status and the parentage of her daughter. The Tribunal noted that section 100 of the Act provides that an answer is incorrect even if the applicant did not know it was incorrect. Based on the evidence, including admissions by the applicant and information from a third party, the Tribunal concluded that the applicant's relationship with her sponsor may not have been one of mutual commitment to the exclusion of other relationships at the time of her earlier visa applications. Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the decision to cancel the applicant's Subclass 155 visa.