1931050 (Migration)

This matter concerned an appeal by a visa applicant against the cancellation of their Subclass 143 (Contributory Parent) visa. The dispute arose from alleged incorrect answers provided in the visa application concerning the applicant's relationship status and family composition, specifically the existence of a second child. The decision was made by the Tribunal, presided over by Stephen Conwell.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicant had failed to comply with section 101 of the Migration Act 1958, which mandates that visa applications must be completed accurately, with all questions answered and no incorrect information provided. This question was to be determined in light of a notice issued under section 107 of the Act, which particularised the alleged non-compliance regarding the applicant's relationship status and the omission of a dependent child.

The Tribunal considered that the applicant's visa application contained incorrect answers regarding his relationship status, stating he had "Never married or been in a de facto relationship," and failed to disclose his second child, [Child 2], as a dependent. The Tribunal noted that under section 98 of the Act, an applicant is taken to have provided the answers on their application form, even if completed by another person on their behalf. Furthermore, section 100 clarifies that an answer is considered incorrect even if the applicant was unaware of its inaccuracy. The Tribunal was satisfied that the delegate had properly engaged section 107 and that the notice issued complied with statutory requirements.

The Tribunal affirmed the decision to cancel the applicant's Subclass 143 (Contributory Parent) visa, finding that there had been non-compliance with the requirements of the Act as particularised in the section 107 notice.