2111428 (MIGRATION)

This matter concerned an appeal against the cancellation of a Skilled Independent (Permanent) (Class SI) visa, Subclass 189. The applicant had been granted the visa as a secondary applicant based on her claimed relationship with the primary applicant, [Mr A]. The Department had cancelled the visa on the grounds that the applicant had provided incorrect information and bogus documents in support of her application, specifically concerning her claimed de facto relationship and cohabitation with [Mr A]. The applicant had previously held a student visa, which ceased in 2015, and had experienced refusals for a Subclass 457 visa before being granted the Subclass 189 visa in 2017.

The primary legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the applicant had failed to comply with the requirements of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth) by providing incorrect information and bogus documents, and whether the Minister had validly exercised the power to cancel her visa under section 109 of the Act. This involved determining if the documents submitted to evidence the de facto relationship, such as bank statements and telephone bills, were fraudulent, and if the applicant's statements regarding her residence and relationship with [Mr A] were accurate. The Tribunal also considered the validity of the notice of intention to cancel the visa, particularly whether it was sent to the applicant's last known address.

The Tribunal found that forensic examination of the submitted documents revealed fraudulent alterations to bank statements and telephone bills, supporting the conclusion that bogus documents had been provided. Furthermore, discrepancies were noted between the applicant's claimed address and travel history, and the information provided on her incoming passenger cards. The Tribunal was satisfied that the applicant had breached sections 101 and 103 of the Act by providing incorrect answers and bogus documents. The notice of intention to cancel was sent by registered mail to the applicant's last known address, and the fact that it was returned marked "not at this address" did not invalidate the notice, as the method of notification complied with regulatory requirements.

The Tribunal affirmed the decision to cancel the applicant's Subclass 189 visa. The applicant had failed to provide a satisfactory response to the notice of intention to cancel, and the Tribunal concluded that, having regard to all the relevant circumstances, the visa should be cancelled.