2105991 (Migration)

This matter concerned an application for review of the cancellation of the applicant's Subclass 417 (Working Holiday) visa. The applicant had provided incorrect information in his second visa application, specifically regarding the completion of three months of specified work. Verification checks with the purported employer were unsuccessful, and it was revealed that the applicant had paid an individual to provide false information due to being unable to find work because of COVID-19 restrictions. The applicant did not respond to the Department's Notice of Intention to Consider Cancellation (NOICC).

The legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the applicant had failed to comply with his obligations under section 101(b) of the Migration Act 1958 by providing incorrect answers in his visa application, and if so, whether the discretion to cancel his visa under section 109(1) of the Act should be exercised. The Tribunal was required to consider the prescribed circumstances for cancellation, including the applicant's response to the NOICC, the circumstances of the non-compliance, and the applicant's present circumstances.

The Tribunal found that the applicant had indeed failed to comply with section 101(b) of the Act by providing incorrect information in his visa application. Despite the applicant's remorse, his admission of panic, and his desire to remain in Australia, the Tribunal noted that he had not responded to the NOICC. The Tribunal considered the prescribed circumstances for cancellation, including the fact that the visa grant was based on incorrect information and the applicant's failure to engage with the Department's process. The Tribunal concluded that the visa should be cancelled.

The Tribunal affirmed the decision to cancel the applicant's Subclass 417 (Working Holiday) visa.