2301482 (Migration)

2301482 (Migration) [2023] AATA 3984 (8 November 2023)
DECISION RECORD
DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division
REPRESENTATIVE:  Mr Visa Nathan
CASE NUMBER:  2301482
MEMBER:Rachel Westaway
DATE:8 November 2023
PLACE OF DECISION:  Melbourne
DECISION:The Tribunal affirms the decision to cancel the applicant’s Subclass 801 (Spouse) visa.

Statement made on 08 November 2023 at 8:39pm
CATCHWORDS
MIGRATION – cancellation – Partner (Residence) (Class BS) visa – Subclass 801 (Spouse) – incorrect information in the visa application – identity and address details – Australian citizen child – new relationship – financial hardship – best interests of the child – Vietnamese citizenship – decision under review affirmed
LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958, ss 5(1), 48, 97-105, 107-109, 111, 112, 140, 359, 362
Migration Regulations 1994, Schedule 2, cl 801.221
CASES
MIAC v Khadgi (2010) 190 FCR 248
Any references appearing in square brackets indicate that information has been omitted from this decision pursuant to section 378 of the Migration Act 1958 and replaced with generic information.
STATEMENT OF DECISION AND REASONS
APPLICATION FOR REVIEW

This is an application for review of a decision made by a delegate of the Minister for Home Affairs to cancel the applicant’s Subclass 801 (Spouse) visa under s 109(1) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (the Act).
The delegate cancelled the visa on the basis that the applicant did not comply with sections 101(b) and 103 of Migration Act 1958 (the Act). The issue in the present case is whether that ground for cancellation is made out, and if so, whether the visa should be cancelled.
The applicant appeared before the Tribunal on 18 July 2023 at 10:00am to give evidence and present arguments. The Tribunal also received oral evidence from [Ms A] the applicant’s recent wife. The Tribunal hearing was conducted with the assistance of an interpreter in the Vietnamese and English languages.
The applicant was represented in relation to the review.
For the following reasons, the Tribunal has concluded that the decision to cancel the applicant’s visa should be affirmed.
CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE
Section 109(1) of the Act allows the Minister to cancel a visa if the visa holder has failed to comply with ss 101, 102, 103, 104, 105 or 107(2) of the Act. Broadly speaking, these sections require non-citizens to provide correct information in their visa applications and passenger cards, not to provide bogus documents and to notify the Department of any incorrect information of which they become aware and of any relevant changes in circumstances.
The exercise of the cancellation power under s 109 of the Act is conditional on the Minister issuing a valid notice to the visa holder under s 107 of the Act, providing particulars of the alleged non-compliance. Where a notice is issued that does not comply with the requirements in s 107, the power to cancel the visa does not arise. Extracts of the Act relevant to this case are attached to this decision.
In the present matter, the Tribunal is satisfied that the delegate had reached the necessary state of mind to engage s 107 and that the notice issued under s 107 complied with the statutory requirements.
Background
The applicant was born in Vietnam on [date] and is [age] years old.
On 19 December 2011 the applicant applied offshore for a Prospective Marriage (subclass 300) visa, sponsored by his Australian fiancée [Ms B] (born [DOB 1]).
Based on the information provided by the applicant in their visa application on 1 August 2012 the delegate assessed that they met all the requirements and granted a Prospective Marriage (subclass 300) visa.
[In] August 2012 the applicant travelled to Australia for the first time, using that visa, and have remained onshore since.
On 26 October 2012 the applicant applied onshore for a combined Partner (Provisional, subclass 820 / Permanent, subclass 801) visa, sponsored by [Ms B] (born [DOB 1]) with whom at that stage was their spouse.
On 7 April 2016 the delegate assessed that the applicant and the sponsor were not in a genuine married relationship, hence they were not the spouse of an Australian citizen or Permanent resident and did not meet the requirements of Regulation 801.221(2), so refused the grant of a Partner (Permanent) (subclass 801) visa.
The applicant sought a merits review of that decision with the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT), who considered additional information that was submitted to them. On 30 April 2018 the Tribunal member remitted that decision back to the Department for reconsideration, with a direction that the applicant met Regulation 801.221(2)(c).
On 2 May 2018 the applicant was granted a Partner (Permanent) (subclass 801) visa.
NOTICE OF INTENTION TO CONSIDER CANCELLATION (NOICC/NOTICE) & RESPONSE
On 19 July 2022, the applicant was issued with a Notice of Intention to Consider Cancellation of the Partner (subclass 801) visa for non-compliance in relation to Section 101(b) and Section 103. The applicant was provided with 14 days to respond to the notice.
On 28 July 2022 the applicant’s authorise representative emailed the Department requesting an extension of time.
On 28 July 2022 the Department responded to the applicant’s authorised representative to let them know that an extension of time could not be granted.
On 29 July 2022 the applicant authorised representative emailed the department requesting previous visa applications and other documents relating to his client.
On 1 August 2022 the department sent relevant files that they were able to send and that were requested.
On 28 November 2022 the department emailed the applicant’s authorised representative to see if they would be submitting anything.
On 3 November the applicant’s authorised representative responded to the Department’s email saying that they would be providing a response but needed two to three weeks to do this.
On 1 December 2022 the Department responded to the applicant’s authorised representative and let them know that the due date had passed but they would consider any submissions made before any decision was made, which would be two weeks.
On 10 January 2023 the applicant’s authorised representative provided a birth certificate for the applicant’s child with his new partner dated [date], their marriage certificate and the child’s citizenship certificate. The response stated that they have been unable to obtain further information regarding the original documents about [the applicant’s] birth certificate or his family book. It went on to state that they rely on the information provided previously and have no more to add. It asked the decision maker to consider that they have a child born in Australia who is an Australian citizen and the child will suffer considerable hardship by reason of him returning to Vietnam. It also stated that the applicant has a wife who is depending on his visa to obtain permanent residence and who will not be granted a visa and consequently the child will be deprived of both his parents if they both are forced to leave the country
The delegate considered all the material and decided that the ground for cancellation arises and that the visa should be cancelled.
The Department’s Decision
The delegate made a decision to cancel the applicant’s visa under section 109 of the Act on 5 February 2023. This was on the basis that the delegate found that the applicant had not complied with s 101(b) and 103 of the Act.
The Department found that the applicant’s mother’s claimed name, and his father’s claimed date of birth, were incorrect
According to departmental records, on 8 May 2017 a [Father A] (born [DOB 2]) and a [Mother A] (born [DOB 3]) applied offshore for temporary visas. In support of their applications, they provided certified copies of their Vietnam National Identity Card Numbers ([NIC 1] and [NIC 2], respectively), verifying their claimed names and dates of birth.
The Department noted that [Father A] has the same name, place of birth and Vietnam National Identity Card Number as the applicant’s claimed father in his Prospective Marriage visa application, but that his date of birth was slightly different to his claimed father, whose date of birth he claimed was [a date close to DOB 2].
The Department also noted that [Mother A] has the same date and place of birth and Vietnam National Identity Card Number as the applicant’s claimed mother, but that her middle name is spelt slightly differently to applicant’s claimed mother, whose name they claimed was [Mother A variant].
The applicant’s mother’s middle name, and father’s date of birth provided in their temporary visa applications lodged on 8 May 2017 and supported by Household Registration Book Number [HRB 1] are slightly different to those that appear in the copy of the applicant’s birth certificate issued [in] December 2010, and Household Registration Book number [HRB 2], which the applicant provided in support of his Prospective Marriage visa application. This indicated to the Department that the documents the applicant provided may be fraudulent because they do not contain his parents’ correct names and dates of birth.
The Department contacted the Legal Office of the People’s committee of [District 1], Quang Tri province to check if there have been any notes regarding amendments or corrections in relation to the applicant’s parents in the birth registration master records saved at the people’s committee of [Commune 1] and, especially if the applicant’s mother’s first name is [either of the two names specified] or whether both names were recorded. In response, the Department was advised that the applicant’s mother’s name is [Mother A] and there have been no notes regarding amendments of the applicant’s birth registration number [BRN 1].
The Vietnamese authorities provided a copy of the page of the Master birth registration records for the year [in question], registration date [specified]. The Department noted that this registration number ([BRN 1]) is recorded in the copy of the applicant’s birth certificate extract which he provided in support of his Prospective Marriage visa application. The page shows that the applicant’s father is recorded as [Father A] and his mother as [Mother A]. This indicated that the applicant’s mother’s middle name appearing in the applicant’s birth certificate issued [in] December 2010, and Household Registration Book number [HRB 2], is incorrect.
The Department also noted that Household Registration Book [HRB 2], which the applicant provided in support of his visa applications, stated his father’s date of birth is [a date close to DOB 2] and his Vietnam National Identity Card Number is [NIC 1]. However, in the applicant’s father’s temporary visa application he provided a certified copy of that National Identity Card, which stated his date of birth is [DOB 2].
The Department found that this indicated that the applicant’s father’s date of birth appearing in his birth certificate issued [in] December 2010, and Household Registration Book number [HRB 2], was also incorrect.
The Department found that the applicant’s birth certificate issued [in] December 2010, and Household Registration Book number [HRB 2], which they provided in support of their Prospective Marriage and Partner visa applications, contain incorrect information regarding the applicant’s father’s date of birth and mother’s middle name, so are bogus document as per section 5(1)(b) of the Act because they are counterfeit or have been altered by a person who does not have authority to do so.
[Ms B], who sponsored the applicant for Prospective Marriage and Partner visa, is the applicant’s first cousin.
In both the applicant’s Prospective Marriage and Partner visa application forms, he stated [Ms B’s] father is [Mr C] (born [DOB 4]) and her mother is [Ms C] (born [DOB 5]).
On 18 August 2015, the applicant and [Ms B] were interviewed by the Partner visa delegate and stated that [Ms B’s] parents live at [Address 1], Victoria. According to departmental records, on 8 April 2017 [Ms B’s] father advised the Department he was still living at that address.
According to departmental records, in the applicant’s mother’s temporary visa application lodged on 8 May 2017, she stated she has a brother named [Mr C] (born [DOB 4])—which is the same name and date of birth as [Ms B’s] father—living in Australia, at [Address 1] Victoria.
The department found that this indicated that the applicant’s mother and [Ms B’s] father, are siblings, and hence that the applicant and [Ms B] are first cousins.
In the applicant’s statutory declaration dated 10 September 2014 in support of his Partner visa application, the applicant claimed that he and [Ms B] had both been living together for over two years and that they resided at [Address 2] with the sponsor’s brother’s family at the date of signing the statutory declaration.
On 18 August 2015 the applicant and [Ms B] were interviewed by the Partner visa delegate at the Department’s Melbourne office, and both stated that they have lived at [Address 2] for one and a half years—that is, since approximately March 2014.
In support of the applicant’s original AAT appeal against that initially refused Partner visa application, he provided a letter from [Ms B’s] brother [named], dated 8 March 2016, in which he stated he owns the property at [Address 2], and that the applicant and his sister have been renting a room at his house for the last three years—that is, since approximately March 2013. This is inconsistent with what the applicant claimed earlier as it indicates he was living at that address approximately one year earlier than he claimed.
The applicant provided further documents for his original Partner visa application, where he indicated that he instead lived at the sponsor’s other brother [Brother A’s] house at [Address 3] during at least some of that period—specifically between [September] 2013 and 8 February 2014 these included:
·     Supporting letter dated 15 October 2012 by spnsor’s brother [Brother A], stating that his address is [Address 3].
·     Certified copy of a Contract for Sale of a [brand] motor vehicle from [a name business], which applicant signed as the purchaser on 8 February 2014. That contract states his residential address is [Address 3].
·     Medibank certificate of cover, issued [in] September 2013 to applicant and [Ms B], stating their address is [Address 3].
·     Copy of the applicant’s Victorian Probationary P2 Driver Licence number [DLN 1], with expiry date [in] September 2016, stating on the front that his address is [Address 3]. On the reverse of that licence a change of address sticker was affixed, stating his address was [Address 2], but there is no information to indicate when this change was made. According to the website for VicRoads, a new or reissued probationary P2 driver’s licence is only issued with either three or ten years’ validity. Since the applicant only first entered Australia [in] August 2012, and his probationary driver’s licence had an expiry date [in] September 2016, the department found that it must have been issued [in] September 2013, with three years validity. They subsequently found that the applicant had told VicRoads [in] September 2013 that his residential address in Australia was [Address 3].
Furthermore, the following information indicated that the applicant instead lived at a third address during that entire period:
· According to departmental records, on 23 August 2020 the applicant sponsored your new spouse, [Ms A] (born [DOB]), for a combined Partner visa.
· In the sponsorship form the applicant stated his residential address is [Address 4], and that he has lived at that address since [August] 2012.
In support of the applicant’s Partner visa application, he provided certified copies of the following documents:
· Household Registration Book, number [HRB 2], issued [in] August 2011 by the Quang Tri Province police.
· A copy of his birth certificate, issued [in] December 2010 from the details in birth register number [BRN 1], by the People’s Committee of [Commune 1], [District 1], Quang Tri province.
These documents both stated the applicant’s parents’ names and dates of birth as the same as he had stated them in his Partner visa application form.
The Department considered the above documents were bogus documents as per the definition at section 5(1)(b) of the Act, as they are counterfeit or have been altered by a person who does not have authority to do so.
On 5 February 2023, the Department decided to cancel the applicant’s visa on the basis that the did not comply with sections 101(b) and 103 of the Migration Act 1958 (‘The Act’).
The Tribunal Application
The applicant applied for review of the Department’s decision on 6 February 2023. The applicant provided a copy of the Department’s decision record and notification letter with their review application.
Invitation to comment on or respond to information under s.359A of the Act
On 12 April 2023, the Tribunal wrote to the applicant via her authorised representative and invited him to comment on or respond to information before the Tribunal which the Tribunal considered would, subject to the applicant’s comments or response, be the reason or part of the reason for affirming the decision under review.
The letter provided the applicant with 14 days to comment on or respond to this information in writing and stated that if the Tribunal did not receive her comments or response within the period allowed or as extended, the Tribunal may make a decision on the review without taking any further action to obtain the applicant’s views on the information. It also advised that the applicant would lose any entitlement they might other have had under the Act to appear before the Tribunal to give evidence and present arguments at a hearing.
On 21 April 2023, the Tribunal received an email from the authorised representative requesting an extension of time to respond to the Tribunal’s invitation. The Tribunal agreed to the extension till 5 May 2023.
On 2 May 2023 the applicant’s authorised representative submitted a response to the invitation. He stated the applicant denied he submitted bogus documents and did not breach Section 101(b) and 103 of the act.
Invitation to comment on the validity of non-disclosure certificate
On 12 April 2023, the Tribunal wrote to the applicant via their authorised representative to invite them to comment on the validity of a non-disclosure certificate issued under s 375A of the Act which was attached to selected folios on the Department file. A copy of the non-disclosure certificate was provided with the letter. The letter stated that subject to the applicant’s comments the Tribunal proposed to find that the certificate was valid and invited the applicant to comment on the validity of the certificate within 14 days if they wished to provide comment on or submissions regarding the certificate.
On 13 April 2023 the applicant’s authorised representative responded and requested the folios that were subject to s375A. He stated until which time this is received his client is unable to respond to the allegations. He also attached a signed request for access to documents under s362A form.
On 20 April 2023 the Tribunal responded to the applicant’s representative’s requests stating that documents are protected on the basis that release of these documents would be contrary to public interest because the information would:
·     disclose, or enable a person to ascertain the existence or identity of, a confidential source of information.
·     disclose lawful methods for preventing, detecting and investigating breaches or evasions of the law which would or be likely to prejudice the effectiveness of those methods.
·     where information was provided ‘in confidence’, the provider of the information has not consented to the disclosure of the information to the review applicant.
Invitation to provide information under s.359(2) of the Act
On 12 April 2023, the Tribunal wrote to the applicant via their authorised representative under s 359(2) of the Act inviting them to provide information regarding the grounds which the Tribunal must consider for cancelling his visa under s.109 of the Act.

On 21 April 2023, the Tribunal received an email from the authorised representative requesting an extension of time to respond to the Tribunal’s invitation. The Tribunal agreed to the extension until 5 May 2023.
On 2 May 2023 the applicant’s authorised representative submitted a response to the invitation. This was a statement in which he outlined why the applicant did not submit any bogus documents and did not breach Section 101(b) and 103 of the Act.
The submission stated that this is based purely on a suspicion that the birth certificate and household registration book are counterfeit or have been altered and there is no evidence to suggest this and if such information exists this has not been presented to the applicant. He reiterated that the documents were issued by the proper authority in Vietnam and believes his combined partner application is correct and cannot comment on a contradiction between these documents and any others available to the Department or Tribunal.
The applicant stated that the sponsor is in no way related to the applicant and that he lived with his sponsor at the stated addresses in his visa application and review application.
He explained that he incorrectly stated that he lived at [Address 4] since 2012 and has subsequently corrected this information. He provided a copy of the form relating to incorrect information and claims that the date should have been August 2019 and not 2012.
Attached to the submission was a forwarded email dated 17 August 2020 which is untranslated.
Evidence taken at Hearing
The Tribunal discussed with the applicant the incorrect information outlined in correspondence previously sent to him. The applicant stated that he had no idea why the date of his father’s birth is listed differently and no idea about the difference in his mother’s spelling of her name. He stated that his sponsor and he are not related. The applicant was resolute in his claims. He claims he was married to his sponsor for seven years and commenced a new relationship since 2019 with [Ms A] and they have a child together.
The Tribunal discussed the different addresses listed and discussed the discrepancy pertaining to the sale of their car and the listed address where they lived which differed from what he had stated in his applications and to the AAT in his first hearing. He claims his ex-wife purchased the car and he cannot explain this discrepancy.
The Tribunal went on to discuss that there was inconsistent information regarding his address with Medicare and the car sale. He stated that the time since these events occurred were a long time ago and he cannot recall.
The time is too long and he cannot recall. He stated that his ex-wife changed address but it was a long time ago and he is unable to explain this.
The applicant agreed that in the new partner application it listed incorrectly that he had been residing at [Address 4] since 2012. He provided evidence of a form sent to the Department to correct this information and claims that the date should have been August 2019 and not August 2012 when he commenced living at [Address 4]. The applicant claims that his agent put the incorrect information in the application and not him.
The applicant stated that he is employed as [an Occupation 1]and has worked with the company for three years.
He confirmed he and [Ms A] were married in 2020 and he met her in Australia and have a child from the relationship. A DNA test was provided to the Department confirming the applicant is the father. The applicant has applied for a combined partner visa to sponsor [Ms A].
The child is currently enrolled in kindergarten. At the time of hearing, he was [age] years old and his name is [Son A].
The applicant confirmed he had applied for citizenship for his son which has been granted and that his wife is Vietnamese. She is employed as [an Occupation 2]. He claims that neither have family in Australia. He stated that his son attends kindergarten on Mondays and Tuesdays and is cared for in private day care the other days.
He stated that he and his wife own two cars and they have a joint account. He explained that he is currently renting his accommodation.
When asked about his life he explained they both work and on weekends they remain at home and cook and sometimes see friends. His friends are predominantly work colleagues.
He explained that his son has experienced delayed speech and he attends a speech pathologist weekly. He stated this was noticed when he was approximately two or three years of age.
The Tribunal asked the applicant about his membership of community groups and he explained that he attends his local temple on special occasions such as New Year and his wife also attends. When asked about his wife’s health he stated she suffers from hay fever but is otherwise healthy. He explained she had previously suffered from a broken leg in Vietnam and might require the pin to be removed. However, the accident occurred when she was a child and she has not seen a surgeon since.
The applicant confirmed he has never been charged with any offences and has not breached any conditions on any of the visas he has held.
The Tribunal asked the applicant what he would do if the visa were cancelled and he stated his son is an Australian citizen and he could not leave him. He explained that he needs to remain in Australia for his speech sessions. The Tribunal asked the applicant why his son could not have these in Vietnam and he stated that his son only speaks English. When question as to how he communicates with his child when he only speaks Vietnamese he stated that his son can understand Vietnamese but only responds in English.
The applicant asked the Tribunal to consider that he has lived in Australia for eleven years and paid taxes and works and has a wife and Australian citizen child.
[Ms A], the applicant’s current wife provided oral evidence to the Tribunal.
She claims they met in 2014 when she was staying in his wife’s brothers house.
The applicant and his wife came to the house to visit and that is how they met. She stated that they knew each other in Vietnam.
She explained that the relationship commenced in 2018 and they started living together in August 2019 at [Address 4]. She claims she was living there with a friend and her husband moved in. She moved in around 2017.
She explained she was aware of the marriage between her husband and his wife which ended as they did not love each other anymore. She said that her son was born on [date]. She said that the pregnancy was an accident and at that point they were not in love.
She stated that she loves her husband and depends on him and would return with him to Vietnam if his visa was cancelled. She confirmed she has family in Vietnam and no family in Australia and nor does her husband.
The Tribunal asked her about her son and she stated that he is under the NDIS for his speech therapy and goes every two week as well as having occupational therapy. She explained that these programs are not available in Vietnam. The Tribunal explained that it did not accept this and she stated that he could get support in big cities however not in her hometown. She stated that her and her husband are both from Quảng Trị.
She stated there are limited job opportunities and her child cannot speak Vietnamese. She stated it is not a developed city.
She stated that she loves living in Australia and the environment is good and many families want to come to study and she wants her son to have this.
She explained that as she is not proficient in English she struggles to mix with people however her son speaks English and he would be isolated if he were to be sent to Vietnam.
The Tribunal asked her if she was assigned a mothers’ group when she had her son and she confirmed she was but they no longer meet.
She stated she has no friends in Australia and does not undertake voluntary work. She confirmed that she is mostly at home. She said that their social activities are through her husband’s work.
The Tribunal asked her if she undertakes any voluntary work and she explained that she did not however they have donated money to different charities.
She stated that if the visa is cancelled it would affect her and her son. She said that the applicant is a hard worker and pays his taxes and they are saving to buy a house and would love to travel.
Was there non-compliance as described in the s 107 notice?
The Tribunal has carefully considered the applicant’s submission, the documentary evidence before it and the evidence provided at hearing and note his denial that any documents were altered pertaining to his father’s date of birth, the spelling of his mother’s middle name and his denial that his former wife and he are related in any way. Further, he claims that it was a long time ago and he cannot recall details exactly but denied all allegations that have been put to him pertaining to the cancellation. He did however state that there was an error due to his representative stating the incorrect period when he commenced living at [Address 4] with his new partner and he was unable to explain discrepancies in his address where he claims to have lived with his wife during certain periods in spite of conflicting evidence he provided to the Department from Medibank and VicRoads.
The Tribunal has before it evidence that the applicant’s father’s date of birth is [DOB 2 variant] and not [the date close to that date] and his mother’s middle name is spelt [given name] and not [the variant]. This differs from what the applicant put in his applications. These have been confirmed by the authorities in Vietnam and the applicant has provided no further evidence to negate these other than his oral denials and written submission. The Tribunal has relied upon confirmation from Vietnamese Authorities that alterations were not made to his father’s date of birth or his mother’s middle name. Given there is no other explanation, the Tribunal finds that the applicant has provided incorrect information supported by bogus documents.
The applicant stated in his application that he is not related to his former sponsor and has continued to deny this. In both the applicant’s Prospective Marriage and Partner visa application forms, he lists [Ms B’s] father as [Mr C] (born [DOB 4]) and her mother is [Ms C] (born [DOB 5]). Further, when the applicant and sponsor were interviewed on 18 August 2015 by the Department, they confirmed that the sponsor’s parents live at [Address 1], Victoria which was also confirmed on 8 April 2017 by the sponsor’s father who had advised the Department he was still living at that address.

100. The Tribunal has relied upon Departmental records which include the visitor visa applications for the applicant’s parents which are referred to in the delegate’s decision and provided by the applicant. They clearly state in each application that was lodged on 8 May 2017 the applicant’s father has a brother-in-law named [Mr C] (born [DOB 4]) who lives at [Address 1] and in the mother’s application that she has a brother named [Mr C] (born [DOB 4]) who lives at [Address 1]
101. The Tribunal has relied on this information and finds that the review applicant’s mother and his sponsor’s father are brother and sister and as such the sponsor and applicant are first cousins and as such the applicant has provided incorrect information in his previous visa applications.
102. In regard to the correct address of the applicant and sponsor, the applicant provided a statutory declaration dated 10 September 2014 supporting his partner application. In the statement he claims to have lived with the sponsor for two years and was currently residing at [Address 2]. The Tribunal acknowledges that no commencement date was specified as to when they moved to [that address]
103. On 18 August 2015 at an interview with the delegate from the department the applicant and the sponsor stated that they lived at [Address 2] for one and a half years (March 2014). This correlates with the applicant’s statutory declaration.
104. However, as part of the applicant’s previous AAT review, a supporting statutory declaration from the sponsor’s brother state that the applicant and sponsor have rented a room from him at [Address 2] for three years between March 2013 and March 2016. This information differs from the applicant and sponsor’s claims that they have been living at [Address 2 variant] since March 2014.
105. Further conflicting evidence was provided by the applicant in his partner visa application which indicated he was living with the sponsor’s other brother at [Address 3]. This evidence included a Certificate of Cover from Medibank issued [in] September 2013 listing the applicant’s address as [Address 3] at that time.
106. Another was a certified contract of sale for a motor vehicle signed by the applicant on 8 February 2014 listing his address as [Address 3]. At hearing the applicant stated he has no idea of this address and he believes it was his former wife who signed this and that it was her car and he does not know why this address was listed and that it was a long time ago and he cannot recall. If it was the applicant’s wife, it will still contradict the claimed period the applicant had stated he was living at [Address 2] for.
107. However, the applicant’s probationary licence he provided with his application also stated his address as [Address 3] with a change of address sticker listing [Address 2] later attached. The Tribunal agrees with the Delegate’s deduction based on VicRoads website that with the applicant first arriving in Australia in August 2012, he must have been given a three-year validity on his licence. The licence had an expiry date [in] September 2016 and as such it must have been issued three years earlier, namely [in] September 2013. Given his first address listed on his licence at that time was [Address 3], he must have been living there at that time.
108. The applicant was unable to provide any explanation regarding the address at [Address 3] to the Tribunal when asked.
109. The applicant did however state the additional address listed in his combined partner application for his new partner incorrectly listed as [Address 4] from [August] 2012 and he stated that this was an error by his migration representative and should have stated [a day in] August 2019. He provided a copy of his notification of incorrect answers to the Department regarding this which was generated on 26 April 2023. The Tribunal accept this was an error as in all other parts of the application the year 2019 is stated.
110. The Tribunal finds that there is conflicting information which differs from the applicant’s statutory declaration supporting his subclass 820/801 visa application and his department interview. The Tribunal has been provided with no logical explanation regarding the additional address of [Address 3] and no explanation pertaining to the 12 months difference that his brother-in-law claims he was renting [Address 2]. The Tribunal accepts that the applicant made a typographical error regarding when he commenced living at [Address 4] with his new partner.
111. The Tribunal finds that the applicant provided incorrect information regarding where he lived in his previous visa applications and information provided to the Department and AAT.
112. Looking at the evidence cumulatively and for the reasons outlined above, the Tribunal is satisfied that the applicant has provided bogus documents and incorrect information in his Prospective Marriage application, his combined Partner visa application and to the AAT in the initial review of his Partner visa and therefore did not comply with s 101 and s 103 of the Act in the manner described in the s 107 notice.
Should the visa be cancelled?

As the Tribunal has decided that there was non-compliance in the way described in the notice given to the applicant under s 107 of the Act, it is necessary to consider whether the visa should be cancelled pursuant to s 109(1). Cancellation in this context is discretionary, as there are no mandatory cancellation circumstances prescribed under s 109(2).
In exercising this power, the Tribunal must consider the applicant’s response (if any) to the s 107 notice about the non-compliance and have regard to any prescribed circumstances: s 109(1)(b) and (c). While these factors must be considered, they do not represent an exhaustive statement of the circumstances that might properly be considered to be relevant in any given case: MIAC v Khadgi (2010) 190 FCR 248. The Tribunal may also have regard to lawful government policy. The relevant policy is set out in the Department’s Procedural Advice Manual) PAM3 ‘General visa cancellation powers’, which refers to matters such as the consequences of cancelling the visa, international obligations and any other relevant matters.
·the correct information

115. For the reasons outlined above, the Tribunal finds that the applicant’s father’s date of birth provided in his father’s temporary visa applications and supported by Household Registration Book Number [HRB 1] is correct and the date of birth provided by the applicant in his birth registration is not. The correct information is that [Father A] was born on [DOB 2] and not [a date close to DOB 2].
116. The applicant’s mother, [Mother A], (born [DOB 3]) provided evidence in her temporary visa application stating her middle name is [the specified given name] and not [the variant] which is different to what the applicant has stated in his visa applications. Checks undertaken by the Vietnamese authorities confirm no alterations were made to the applicant’s birth registration. The correct information is that the applicant’s mother’s middle name is [the given name].
117. The applicant stated that he is not related to the sponsor in his visa applications and yet the evidence before the Tribunal indicates that they are first cousins.
118. Based on the information before the Tribunal, the applicant and sponsor did not live at [Address 2] from March 2014.
119. Based on the applicant’s statutory declaration supporting his partner application and information he and his sponsor provided the delegate at interview, they had been living together at [Address 2] since March 2014. This is not the correct information and has been contradicted by evidence before the Tribunal. The applicant’s brother-in-law stated he rented them a room for three years at [Address 2] from March 2013.
120. However other independent evidence suggests that the applicant was living at [Address 3] [in] September 2013. This includes a Certificate of Cover from Medibank listing the applicant’s address as [Address 3] at that time. This is further supported by a Certified contract of sale for a motor vehicle signed by the applicant on 8 February 2014 listing his address as [Address 3].
121. The applicant’s probationary licence he provided with his application also stated his address as [Address 3] with a change of address sticker listing [Address 2] later attached around [a day in] September 2013.
122. The Tribunal gives this aspect significant weight in favour of cancellation.
·the content of the genuine document (if any)

123. The applicant provided a Household Registration Book issued [in] August 2011 number [HRB 2] and a copy of his claimed birth certificate number [BRN 1] issued [in] December 2010.
124. The Department has obtained verification from the Vietnamese authorities of the applicant’s parents’ national identity cards which were used for their visitor visa applications and sought to clarify if there was any record of alterations or variations to their names or dates of birth. The authorities confirmed no alterations have been made. As such the Tribunal concludes that the documents provided by the applicant were altered and therefore bogus.
125. The Tribunal gives this aspect significant weight in favour of cancellation.
·whether the decision to grant a visa or immigration clear the visa holder was based, wholly or partly, on incorrect information or a bogus document

126. It is a requirement for the grant of the combined partner visas that the applicant and the sponsoring spouse have a continuing and mutually committed genuine relationship to the exclusion of all others including that they have a combined household. The decision maker and the Tribunal at merits review would consider whether they lived together as claimed at the addresses which they claim they lived at when assessing the application. As such a proper assessment of the application cannot be made if this information provided is incorrect. In regard to the prospective marriage visa application, the combined partner application and the merits review at the AAT of the first decision, the applicant stated that he was not related to the sponsor however the Tribunal has found that they are first cousins. Whilst first cousins are not prohibited from marrying in Australia, the applicant did not provide this information in his prospective marriage visa application, his combined partner application or at merits review. As such the applications were not able to be properly assessed.
127. For the reasons explained above, the Tribunal has concluded that the applicant’s subclass 300 visa and subclass 820/801 visas were not able to be properly assessed as the incorrect information was provided. Although it is not necessary to establish that the visa would not have been granted if the correct information was known, the Tribunal is satisfied that the decision to grant the visa was based partly on the incorrect information.
128. The Tribunal gives this aspect weight in favour of cancellation.
·the circumstances in which the non-compliance occurred

129. As stated above, the applicant and sponsor would not have been prevented from marrying because they are first cousins. However, the Tribunal can only surmise that the applicant provided bogus documents for his subclass 300 visa application in order to facilitate the processing and granting of the visa and avoid additional scrutiny.
130. The applicant and sponsor provided [Address 2 variant] but further evidence appears to have been accidentally provided that continued negate the address and time frame the applicant and sponsor lived at [Address 2]. The Tribunal can only surmise that the concealing of their blood relationship and the inconsistent information regarding where they lived may have occurred to support a contrived relationship for migration purposes.
131. The Tribunal gives this factor significant weight in favour of the cancellation.
·the present circumstances of the visa holder

132. The applicant has provided a copy of his divorce certificate from the sponsor and has commenced a new relationship with a Vietnamese citizen with whom he has applied to sponsor for a combined partner visa. They were married in 2020. The applicant and his new partner have a child who is [age] and the live in Australia. A birth certificate, Australian Citizen Certificate and DNA test results have been provided.
133. The applicant is employed as [an Occupation 1] with the same company for three years.
134. The child is currently enrolled in kindergarten. At the time of hearing, he was [age] years old and his name is [Son A].
135. The applicant’s child attends kindergarten and day care and his wife works as [an Occupation 2]. They live in rented accommodation and own two cars and they have a joint account.
136. When asked about his life he explained they both work and on weekends they remain at home and cook and sometimes see friends. His friends are predominantly work colleagues.
137. He claims that his son has experienced delayed speech and he attends a speech pathologist weekly since the age of two but has provided no evidence regarding this. He claims that if the visa is cancelled he will need to return to Vietnam and if his family return with him his son will not be able to access the therapy he needs. The applicant’s wife stated that she would like her son to have the benefits of living in Australia and he is unable to speak Vietnamese and would struggle returning to Vietnam.
138. The applicant’s social activities predominantly revolve around work colleagues and he stated he attends his local temple on special occasions such as New Year. When asked about his wife’s health he stated she suffers from hay fever but is otherwise healthy. He explained she had previously suffered from a broken leg in Vietnam and might require the pin to be removed. However, the accident occurred when she was a child and she has not seen a surgeon since.
139. The applicant stated his son is an Australian citizen and he could not leave him as he has speech therapy which he could not access in Vietnam. He said that he has been in Australia for eleven years and paid taxes and works and has a wife and Australian citizen child.
140. The applicant’s wife stated they have no family in Australia and confirmed her son has speech and occupational therapy and would not be able to access this from Quảng Trị which is a small rural city.
141. The applicant’s wife stated that there are limited job opportunities in Vietnam and they would struggle if they had to return and if the visa was cancelled it would affect her and her son and their plans to o buy a house and travel.
142. The Tribunal accepts that the applicant, wife and child would be affected if the visa is cancelled. The applicant has applied to sponsor his wife based on his subclass 801 and as such if the visa is cancelled she would not meet the criteria for her visa.
143. Further the Tribunal understands that the cancellation of the visa would cause financial distress for the applicant as he would no longer be able to work and provide financial support for his family.
144. The Tribunal also accepts that the applicant now has a child who is an Australian citizen and in order to keep the family unit together the mother and child would need to relocate to Vietnam. However, the applicant’s wife is a Vietnamese citizen and the child would be entitled to Vietnamese citizenship and could relocate too.
145. The Tribunal has considered that the applicant’s child does not speak Vietnamese, however the Tribunal also notes that his mother does not speak English, only Vietnamese and when addressing this with the couple at hearing they confirmed he does understand Vietnamese but responds in English. The Tribunal understands that it would initially be difficult for the child to relocate to Vietnam and establish his language skills.
146. The Tribunal has no evidence before it which details the medical issues outlined by the applicant and his wife regarding his son’s delayed speech and need for speech therapy and occupational therapy. The Tribunal accepts that the applicant and sponsor are from a small rural city in Vietnam and that such therapy may not be readily available. This would not prevent the applicant and his family living in a larger city or accessing remote therapy. The Tribunal appreciates that consistent medical therapy for the applicant’s son would be preferred but without evidence before it to indicate the severity of the child’s needs it is not possible to consider this in its entirety.
147. The Tribunal notes that the applicant is [an Occupation 1]and his wife is [an Occupation 2] and there would be employment opportunities in Vietnam for them in these fields if they were to return.
148. The applicant and sponsor have discussed their social network in Australia which has been established over eleven years of the applicant being in Australia and the Tribunal accepts that leaving this would cause some distress.
149. The applicant and his wife both claim they have no family in Australia however based on the findings above, the applicant does have some family in Australia. The hardship of leaving them has not been identified by the applicant, however the Tribunal appreciates that this may cause some distress.
150. The Tribunal gives these factors some weight against not cancelling the visa.
·the subsequent behaviour of the visa holder concerning his or her obligations under Subdivision C of Division 3 of Part 2 of the Act

151. In the submissions to the Department and the Tribunal the applicant has argued that he has not provided incorrect information except in error regarding the dates pertaining to when he and his wife commenced living at [Address 4] and he provided a form to the Department to correct this. The Tribunal does accept this may have been an honest error as other parts of the application did have the correct date and as such gives this no weight.
152. However, the applicant has continued to deny he and his first wife are related and he has been unable to provide any plausible explanation regarding the difference in his father’s date of birth and the spelling of his mother’s middle name and the conflicting information regarding his addresses in spite of clear evidence against his claims.
153. The Tribunal gives this consideration some weight in favour of cancelling the visa.
·any other instances of non-compliance by the visa holder known to the Minister

154. The applicant has continued to reiterate to the Tribunal at review stage that he did not provide incorrect information or bogus documents but has been unable to provide any plausible explanation. This continues to reinforce the non-compliance.
155. The Tribunal gives this some weight in favour of cancellation.
·the time that has elapsed since the non-compliance

156. The applicant lodged his Prospective Marriage visa and has been residing in Australia for 12 years. He arrived in August 2012.
157. The Tribunal considers this a significant period and acknowledges that the applicant has established a new life in Australia. He has divorced his first wife and has established a new relationship and had a child.
158. However, during this period, the applicant has provided evidence to the Department and the Tribunal which continued to support the non-compliance.
159. The Tribunal gives this consideration a little weight in favour of the applicant and not cancelling the visa.
·any breaches of the law since the non-compliance and the seriousness of those breaches

160. There is no adverse information before the Tribunal.
161. The Tribunal gives this consideration a little weight in favour of not cancelling the visa.
·any contribution made by the holder to the community

162. The applicant does not undertake voluntary work and is not a member of any community groups. The Tribunal notes that he has stated he may attend the temple once or twice a year for special events. The Tribunal notes that the applicant’s wife stated that they sometimes donate money to charities. No receipts were provided to support this claims.
163. The Tribunal gives this consideration neutral weight in favour of cancellation.
·whether there would be consequential cancellations under s 140.

164. The applicant has made an application to sponsor his wife on a subclass 820/801 visa. This is yet to be finalised and the granting of the visa would be subject to a range of criteria being met. As such there are no visa that would be cancelled as a consequence of the applicant’s visa being cancelled and the Tribunal gives this consideration no weight.
·if there are children whose interests would be affected by cancellation, or consequential cancellation, decision-makers should consider the best interests of those children as a primary consideration when deciding whether to cancel the visa.

165. As a signatory to the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC), Australia has an obligation concerning children in Australia. The CROC applies to children under 18 years of age. By being a signatory, Australia has agreed to act in a manner consistent with the CROC, recognising the best interests of the chid.
166. The CRC sets out the rights of children in 54 Articles and two Optional Protocols. It spells out the basic human rights that children everywhere have: the right to survival, to develop to the fullest, to protection from harmful influences, protection against abuse and exploitation, to participate fully in family, cultural and social life. The four core principles of the CROC are non-discrimination, devotion to the best interests of the child, the right to life, survival and development, and respect for the views of the child. The CROC sets out standards in relation to health care, education, legal and civil rights.
167. Article 3 of the CRC states:

In all actions concerning children, whether undertaken by public or private social welfare institutions, courts of law, administrative authorities or legislative bodies, the best interests of the child shall be a primary consideration.

States Parties undertake to ensure the child such protection and care as is necessary for his or her well-being, taking into account the rights and duties of his or her parents, legal guardians, or other individuals legally responsible for him or her, and, to this end, shall take all appropriate legislative and administrative measures.

States Parties shall ensure that the institutions, services and facilities responsible for the care or protection of children shall conform with the standards established by competent authorities, particularly in the areas of safety, health, in the number and suitability of their staff, as well as competent supervision.

168. The applicant came to Australia from Vietnam and if the visa is cancelled would return to Vietnam. The applicant’s wife is a Vietnamese citizen and does not hold a permanent visa in Australia. The applicant’s child is [age] years old and was born in Australia and is an Australian citizen. According to Article 15 of the 2008 Law on Vietnamese Nationality he would also have Vietnamese citizenship. At hearing the applicant’s wife stated that she loves her husband and if he were to return to Vietnam she would not want to be without him and would return too.
169. The applicant’s child would be entitled to live with his parents in Vietnam as a family unit should the applicant’s visa be cancelled.
170. The applicant and his wife claim that their family are in Vietnam and as such their child would be supported by an extended family including grandparents.
171. The Tribunal notes that the applicant’s child understands Vietnamese however he chooses to speak in English. The Tribunal appreciates that if the child were to relocate to Vietnam there would be a period of adjustment however he would be bilingual. Further, he has not yet started formal schooling and attends day-care and kindergarten and there is nothing to suggest that he could not transition into primary school in Vietnam.
172. The applicant and his wife have stated that their son requires speech and occupational therapy and is currently under the NDIS. They have provided no details regarding his treatment program or his needs but have stated he could not receive this in Vietnam. The Tribunal discussed this with the applicant and his wife and disagreed that speech therapists and occupational therapists do not exist in Vietnam. The Tribunal accepts that the applicant and sponsor come from a rural part of Vietnam and that such professionals may not practice in some parts of Vietnam. However, the applicant and sponsor do not necessarily have to reside in a rural part of Vietnam and could investigate remote access to such therapy.
173. The Tribunal appreciates that the standard of living and access to medical professionals for some people in Vietnam would be less than in Australia however the applicant has provided limited information at hearing and no documentary evidence supporting his son and his medical needs. The Tribunal notes that the child would be entitled to education in Vietnam and that the best interest of the child is to remain with both parents whilst also recognising his right to remain in Australia as a citizen.
174. If the visa is cancelled the family unit would not need to be broken and the child would be entitled to Vietnamese citizenship as he has two Vietnamese parents.
175. On the evidence, the Tribunal is satisfied that Australia would not be in breach of its international obligations under the CRC in case of the cancellation.
176. The Tribunal gives these factors a little weight in favour of not cancelling the visa.
·whether there are mandatory legal consequences, such as whether the person would become unlawful and liable to detention and removal, whether detention is a likely consequence of the cancellation decision and if so, for how long, and whether there are provisions in the Act which prevent the person from making a valid application for any visa without the Minister personally intervening.

177. In the case of cancellation, the applicant will become an unlawful non-citizen and be liable for detention under s 189 and removal under s 198 of the Act if he does not voluntarily depart. The applicant would also be subject to s 48 of the Act.
178. The Tribunal considers these as the intended legislative consequences. The Tribunal acknowledges that the applicant has a wife and child in Australia and leaving Australia within a limited period of time would cause some hardship. The Tribunal gives this consideration limited weight in favour of not cancelling the visa.
·whether the cancellation would lead to the person's removal in breach of Australia's non-refoulement.

179. There is no information before the Tribunal that the applicant could not return to Vietnam and he has made no claims in this regard pertaining to Australia’s non-refoulment obligations.
180. The Tribunal gives this consideration neutral weight in favour of cancellation as it is not relevant to the applicant.
·If it is a permanent visa, whether the visa holder has strong family, business or other ties to Australia

181. The subclass 801 is a permanent visa. The Tribunal has dealt with ties under other considerations.
182. The Tribunal gives this aspect some weight in favour of the applicant and not cancelling the visa.
·Any other relevant matters (including the degree of hardship that may be caused to the visa holder and any family members).

183. There are no other relevant matters for consideration.
184. The Tribunal has carefully considered the material before it individually and cumulatively. The Tribunal is satisfied that on the balance, the matters for cancellation outweigh the other aspects of the cancellation.
CONCLUDING PARAGRAPHS
185. The Tribunal has decided that there was non-compliance by the applicant in the way described in the notice given under s 107 of the Act. Further, having regard to all the relevant circumstances, as discussed above, the Tribunal concludes that the visa should be cancelled.
DECISION
186. The Tribunal affirms the decision to cancel the applicant’s Subclass 801 (Spouse) visa.
Rachel Westaway
Senior Member

ATTACHMENT – Migration Act 1958 (extracts)
5Interpretation
(1)In this Act, unless the contrary intention appears:
bogus document, in relation to a person, means a document that the Minister reasonably suspects is a document that:
(a)     purports to have been, but was not, issued in respect of the person; or
(b)     is counterfeit or has been altered by a person who does not have authority to do so; or
(c)      was obtained because of a false or misleading statement, whether or not made knowingly.

97Interpretation
In this Subdivision:
application form, in relation to a non‑citizen, means a form on which a non‑citizen applies for a visa, being a form that regulations made for the purposes of section 46 allow to be used for making the application.
passenger card has the meaning given by subsection 506(2) and, for the purposes of section 115, includes any document provided for by regulations under paragraph 504(1)(c).

Note:Bogus document is defined in subsection 5(1).

98Completion of visa application
A non‑citizen who does not fill in his or her application form or passenger card is taken to do so if he or she causes it to be filled in or if it is otherwise filled in on his or her behalf.
99Information is answer
Any information that a non‑citizen gives or provides, causes to be given or provided, or that is given or provided on his or her behalf, to the Minister, an officer, an authorised system, a person or the Tribunal, or the Immigration Assessment authority, reviewing a decision under this Act in relation to the non‑citizen’s application for a visa is taken for the purposes of section 100, paragraphs 101(b) and 102(b) and sections 104 and 105 to be an answer to a question in the non‑citizen’s application form, whether the information is given or provided orally or in writing and whether at an interview or otherwise.
100Incorrect answers
For the purposes of this Subdivision, an answer to a question is incorrect even though the person who gave or provided the answer, or caused the answer to be given or provided, did not know that it was incorrect.
101Visa applications to be correct
A non‑citizen must fill in or complete his or her application form in such a way that:
(a)all questions on it are answered; and
(b)no incorrect answers are given or provided.

103Bogus documents not to be given etc.
A non‑citizen must not give, present, [produce]* or provide to an officer, an authorised system, the Minister, the Immigration Assessment Authority, or the Tribunal performing a function or purpose under this Act, a bogus document or cause such a document to be so given, presented, [produced]* or provided.
* This wording applies to documents given, presented, produced or provided on or after 4 November 2014: Schedule 7 to Counter Terrorism Legislation Amendment (Foreign Fighters) Act 2014 (No.116, 2014).

107Notice of incorrect applications
(1)If the Minister considers that the holder of a visa who has been immigration cleared (whether or not because of that visa) did not comply with section 101, 102, 103, 104 or 105 or with subsection (2) in a response to a notice under this section, the Minister may give the holder a notice:
(a) giving particulars of the possible non‑compliance; and
(b) stating that, within a period stated in the notice as mentioned in subsection (1A), the holder may give the Minister a written response to the notice that:
(i)if the holder disputes that there was non‑compliance:
(A)shows that there was compliance; and
(B)in case the Minister decides under section 108 that, in spite of the statement under sub‑subparagraph (A), there was non‑compliance—shows cause why the visa should not be cancelled; or

(ii)if the holder accepts that there was non‑compliance:
(A)give reasons for the non‑compliance; and
(B)shows cause why the visa should not be cancelled; and

(c) stating that the Minister will consider cancelling the visa:
(i)if the holder gives the Minister oral or written notice, within the period stated as mentioned in subsection (1A), that he or she will not give a written response—when that notice is given; or
(ii)if the holder gives the Minister a written response within that period—when the response is given; or
(iii)otherwise—at the end of that period; and

(d)     setting out the effect of sections 108, 109, 111 and 112; and
(e)      informing the holder that the holder’s obligations under section 104 or 105 are not affected by the notice under this section; and
(f)      requiring the holder:
(i)to tell the Minister the address at which the holder is living; and
(ii)if the holder changes that address before the Minister notifies the holder of the Minister’s decision on whether there was non‑compliance by the holder—to tell the Minister the changed address.

(1A)The period to be stated in the notice under subsection (1) must be:
(a)     in respect of the holder of a temporary visa—the period prescribed by the regulations or, if no period is prescribed, a reasonable period; or
(b)     otherwise—14 days.
(1B)Regulations prescribing a period for the purposes of paragraph (1A)(a) may prescribe different periods and state when a particular period is to apply, which, without limiting the generality of the power, may be to:
(a)     visas of a stated class; or
(b)     visa holders in stated circumstances; or
(c)      visa holders in a stated class of people (who may be visa holders in a particular place); or
(d)     visa holders in a stated class of people (who may be visa holders in a particular place) in stated circumstances.
(2)If the visa holder responds to the notice, he or she must do so without making any incorrect statement.

108Decision about non‑compliance
The Minister is to:
(a)consider any response given by a visa holder in the way required by paragraph 107(1)(b); and
(b)decide whether there was non‑compliance by the visa holder in the way described in the notice.

109Cancellation of visa if information incorrect
(1)The Minister, after:
(a)     deciding under section 108 that there was non‑compliance by the holder of a visa; and
(b)     considering any response to the notice about the non‑compliance given in a way required by paragraph 107(1)(b); and
(c)      having regard to any prescribed circumstances;
may cancel the visa.
(2)If the Minister may cancel a visa under subsection (1), the Minister must do so if there exist circumstances declared by the regulations to be circumstances in which a visa must be cancelled.

[2023] AATA 3984

8 November 2023

Key Legal Topics

Areas of Law

Immigration

Administrative Law

Statutory Interpretation

Legal Concepts

Judicial Review

Procedural Fairness

Statutory Construction

Natural Justice

Appeal