2105530 (Migration)

This matter concerned an appeal by an applicant against the Tribunal's affirmation of the decision to cancel their Bridging A (Class WA) visa, Subclass 010. The dispute arose from allegations that the applicant had provided incorrect information in previous and current student visa applications, failing to declare a previous use of a different name, an overstay in Australia, and a prior protection visa application under that alias. The applicant claimed misunderstanding of the questions and reliance on an agent, but the Tribunal found these reasons vague and noted no attempt to notify the department of the incorrect information or respond to the department's notice.

The Tribunal was required to determine whether the notice of intention to cancel the visa complied with section 107 of the Migration Act 1958 and, if so, whether the visa should be cancelled under section 109 of the Act. Specifically, the Tribunal had to consider the applicant's response to the notice and any prescribed circumstances relevant to the cancellation decision, including the significance of the incorrect information provided, whether any genuine documents were involved, and whether the visa grant was based on that incorrect information.

The Tribunal found that the notice issued under section 107 correctly identified section 101(b) of the Act as the relevant provision, which requires non-citizens to provide correct information in their visa applications. The Tribunal noted that the applicant had not challenged the validity of the notice. The Tribunal then considered the discretionary power to cancel the visa under section 109(1). It found that the applicant had indeed provided incorrect information by failing to disclose their previous name, prior travel to Australia, a refused visa application, and an overstay. The Tribunal weighed this incorrect information, which related to the applicant's identity and migration history, heavily in favour of cancellation. Furthermore, the Tribunal concluded that the decisions to grant the applicant's student visas in 2016 and 2018 were partly based on this incorrect information, as it prevented the assessing officer from considering the applicant's full immigration history, which is relevant to assessing genuine temporary entrant intentions.

The Tribunal affirmed the decision to cancel the applicant's Bridging A visa.