2114364 (Migration)

This matter concerned an application for review of a decision by a delegate of the Minister for Home Affairs to cancel the applicant’s Bridging C (Class WC) visa, subclass 030. The applicant, a citizen of Malaysia, had been granted the bridging visa in conjunction with an application for a protection visa, which had been refused and was currently under review. The cancellation was based on the applicant having provided incorrect information in previous visa applications, including failing to declare previous names, dates of birth, passport numbers, and travel history.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the delegate had correctly exercised their discretion under section 109 of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth) to cancel the applicant's Bridging C visa. This required the court to determine if the applicant had failed to comply with section 101(b) of the Act by providing incorrect answers in visa applications, and if so, whether the cancellation of the visa was a warranted exercise of the delegate's discretion. The court also considered the applicant's failure to respond to the Notice of Intention to Consider Cancellation (NOICC) and the Tribunal's invitation to a hearing.

The court reasoned that the applicant had indeed provided incorrect information in his visa applications, including his Electronic Travel Authority and subsequent Student visa applications, by failing to disclose his alias, a different date of birth, and a fraudulently issued passport. The court found that these misrepresentations were material to the grant of previous visas, including the Electronic Travel Authority, and that had the correct information been known, those visas likely would not have been granted. Furthermore, the applicant's extensive history of unlawful presence in Australia and previous removal further weighed in favour of cancellation. The applicant's failure to provide any response to the NOICC or the Tribunal's requests for information meant there was no evidence of extenuating circumstances to explain his conduct.

The court affirmed the delegate's decision to cancel the applicant's Bridging C visa. The applicant's failure to provide truthful information in his visa applications, coupled with his lack of engagement with the cancellation process and the Tribunal's requests for information, led the court to conclude that the delegate had properly exercised their discretion to cancel the visa.