2301482 (Migration)

This matter concerned an appeal by a visa applicant against the cancellation of their Partner (Permanent) (subclass 801) visa. The Administrative Appeals Tribunal was required to determine whether the delegate had correctly cancelled the visa under section 109 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) due to alleged non-compliance with sections 101(b) and 103 of the Act. The applicant had initially been granted a Prospective Marriage (subclass 300) visa, followed by a Partner (Provisional, subclass 820) and then a Partner (Permanent) (subclass 801) visa. The cancellation was initiated following a Notice of Intention to Consider Cancellation issued on 19 July 2022.

The central legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicant had provided incorrect information in their visa applications, specifically regarding the identity and date of birth of their parents, thereby failing to comply with the requirement to provide true and correct information and to notify the Department of any incorrect information. The Tribunal also considered whether the delegate had reached the necessary state of mind to engage section 107 of the Act and whether the notice issued under that section complied with statutory requirements.

The Tribunal reasoned that the delegate had correctly identified discrepancies between the information provided by the applicant in their visa applications and information obtained from Vietnamese authorities. Specifically, the Tribunal found that the applicant's mother's middle name and father's date of birth, as provided in the applicant's birth certificate and household registration book, differed from the details recorded in the master birth registration records. These discrepancies, confirmed by the Vietnamese authorities, indicated that the applicant had provided incorrect information regarding their parents' identities. 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 the statutory requirements.

The Tribunal affirmed the delegate's decision to cancel the applicant's visa.