2204504 (Migration)

This matter concerned an appeal by the applicant against the cancellation of her Skilled – Independent (Subclass 189) visa. The applicant had been granted the visa based on her de facto relationship with a second applicant, who was included as a member of her family unit. The Department of Home Affairs subsequently examined documents provided to support the claimed relationship, including bank and mobile phone statements, and found evidence of fraudulent alteration. This led to a suspicion that the applicant had provided bogus documents, a breach of section 103 of the Migration Act 1958. The applicant contended that while the documents may have been altered, this occurred without her knowledge or consent, and that she had provided genuine documents to her agent.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicant had contravened section 103 of the Migration Act 1958 by providing bogus documents in support of her visa application. This required the Tribunal to determine if the documents were indeed "bogus" as defined by the Act, and if the applicant had provided or caused them to be provided. The Tribunal also considered whether the notice of intention to cancel the visa was validly issued and whether the applicant's response to that notice had been adequately considered.

The Tribunal reasoned that section 103 of the Migration Act prohibits the provision of bogus documents, and that section 5(1) defines a bogus document as one that is counterfeit or has been altered by an unauthorised person. The Tribunal was satisfied that the documents provided by the applicant had been fraudulently altered to a degree that they were considered bogus. Furthermore, the Tribunal noted that under section 100 of the Act, an answer to a question is considered incorrect even if the person providing it did not know it was incorrect. Applying these principles, the Tribunal found that the applicant had failed to comply with section 103 by providing bogus documents, and that the notice of intention to cancel was validly issued and served.

The Tribunal affirmed the decision to cancel the applicant's visa. The Tribunal also noted that it had no jurisdiction with respect to the second applicant.