2101783 (Migration)

This matter concerned an appeal by the first applicant against the cancellation of his Subclass 186 Employer Nomination Scheme visa. The dispute arose from the applicant providing incorrect information and knowingly supplying false documentation as part of his visa application, failing to notify the Department of his changed identity, and having outstanding debts to the Commonwealth. The Tribunal was required to determine whether the cancellation of the applicant's visa was justified, considering various factors including the applicant's personal circumstances, his relationship with Ms. [A] and their child, and the potential hardship to the second applicant, who was granted a secondary visa as the applicant's spouse.

The Tribunal's reasoning focused on the seriousness of the applicant's conduct, particularly his extensive and premeditated deception regarding his former identity and migration history. The Tribunal found that this deliberate course of conduct significantly outweighed any other considerations in the applicant's favour. While acknowledging the potential hardship to Ms. [A] and their child if the applicant were to return to Nepal, the Tribunal noted that Ms. [A] possessed skills and the ability to obtain employment in Australia, and that there was no impediment to her and the child returning to Nepal with the applicant. Similarly, the Tribunal gave little weight to the second applicant's claims of hardship, as their relationship had ended, and her visa was likely to be cancelled in any event due to no longer being part of the applicant's family unit. The Tribunal also considered the time elapsed since the non-compliance and found it not to be a significant period.

Ultimately, the Tribunal affirmed the decision to cancel the first applicant's visa. The Tribunal concluded that the applicant had indeed non-complied with his obligations under the Migration Act 1958, specifically concerning the provision of false information and documentation. The Tribunal emphasised the gravity with which it viewed breaches of section 101 of the Act, finding the applicant's deliberate deception to be so extensive that it mandated the cancellation of his visa. The Tribunal stated it had no jurisdiction with respect to the second applicant.