2112251 (Migration)

This matter concerned an application by a visa holder to review the cancellation of their Subclass 417 (Working Holiday) visa. The dispute arose from incorrect information provided in the applicant's second extension application, specifically regarding whether they had undertaken six months of specified work in a regional area while holding their first extension. The applicant had claimed to have worked for Quenby Viticultural Services, but departmental verification checks indicated no such employment. The case was heard by Melissa McAdam.

The primary legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the applicant had failed to comply with section 101(b) of the Migration Act 1958 by providing incorrect answers in their visa application, and if so, whether the cancellation of their visa was the appropriate course of action. The Tribunal was required to determine if the notice issued under section 107 of the Act complied with statutory requirements and if the applicant's claims about their work experience were substantiated.

The Tribunal found that the applicant had indeed provided incorrect information in their application for a Working Holiday (Extension) visa, as they had not undertaken the claimed six months of specified work in a regional area. The Tribunal was satisfied that the delegate had reached the necessary state of mind to engage section 107 and that the notice issued complied with statutory requirements. The applicant had confirmed they did not work for Quenby Viticultural Services or complete the required regional work. Having found non-compliance with section 101(b) of the Act, the Tribunal then considered whether the visa should be cancelled.

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