2309595 (Migration)

This decision concerns a review by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal of a decision to cancel a Skilled Independent (Permanent) (Class SI) visa, Subclass 189, held by the applicant. The applicant was a secondary applicant to his claimed partner's primary application. The cancellation was based on allegations of the applicant providing false and misleading information and bogus documents concerning his relationship and residential addresses.

The primary legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the applicant had failed to comply with the requirements of sections 101 and 103 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth), as notified under section 107, and if so, whether the discretion to cancel the visa under section 109(1) should be exercised. The Tribunal was required to consider the applicant's response to the non-compliance notice and any prescribed circumstances, including the correct information, the content of any genuine document, and whether the visa was granted based on incorrect information or a bogus document.

The Tribunal found that the applicant had failed to comply with sections 101 and 103 of the Act. It was satisfied that the applicant and the primary applicant were not in a de facto relationship at the time of the visa application, and their relationship was contrived to allow the applicant to be included as a secondary applicant. The Tribunal also determined that a rental contract submitted as evidence was a bogus document, having been altered to include the applicant. In exercising its discretion under section 109(1), the Tribunal placed significant weight on the fact that the correct information was that no genuine relationship existed and that the applicant was complicit in the migration agent's fraudulent and dishonest actions.

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