2448970 (Migration) - [2024] ARTA 628

2448970 (MIGRATION) [2024] ARTA 628 (24 DECEMBER 2024)
DECISION AND
REASONS FOR DECISION
Respondent:  Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs
Tribunal Number:  2448970

Tribunal:Senior Member M Bourke
Place:Melbourne
Date: 24 December 2024
Decision:The Tribunal affirms the decision to cancel the applicant’s Subclass 020 Bridging B (Class WB) visa.

Statement made on 24 December 2024 at 2:57pm
CATCHWORDS
MIGRATION – cancellation – Bridging B (Class WB) visa – Subclass 050 (Bridging (General)) – documents lodged with the applications for the visitor visas were fraudulent – lodged by the applicant – there are grounds to reasonably suspect that the applicant has committed an offence – no compelling reasons for the applicant to travel to or remain in Australia – decision under review affirmed
LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958, ss 116, 234
Migration Regulations 1994, r 2.43
Any references appearing in square brackets indicate that information has been omitted from this decision pursuant to an order under section 70 of the Administrative Review Tribunal Act 2024 and replaced with generic information.
STATEMENT OF REASONS
APPLICATION FOR REVIEW

This is an application for review of a decision made by a delegate of the Minister for Home Affairs on [date] December 2024 to cancel the applicant’s Subclass 020 Bridging B (Class WB) visa under s.116 of the Migration Act 1958 (the Act).
The delegate cancelled the visa on the basis that a ground existed for the cancellation of the visa under s.116(1)(g) of the Act, and after considering the circumstances of the case, the delegate considered the visa should be cancelled. 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 arrived at Melbourne airport on [date] December 2024, and was subsequently interviewed at the airport on [date] December 2024. The applicant’s visa was cancelled and the applicant was detained. The applicant lodged the application for review online on [date] December 2024.
The applicant was invited to attend a hearing at the Tribunal on 23 December 2024. The applicant was offered the opportunity to attend the hearing by video if that was his preference. The applicant was brought to the Melbourne registry and attended the hearing in person.
The applicant appeared before the Tribunal on 23 December 2024 to give evidence and present arguments.
The Tribunal hearing was conducted with the assistance of an interpreter in the [Country 2] and English languages. An interpreter attended the hearing by way of video connection. The interpreter lost her video connection and proceeded to assist the hearing by way of audio. The interpreter’s audio connection failed. The Tribunal adjourned the hearing to arrange the assistance of another interpreter in the [Country 2] and English languages. The second interpreter attended the hearing by way of telephone connection, which proceeded without interruption.
The applicant was represented in relation to the review. The representative attended the Tribunal hearing.
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
Under s.116 of the Act, the Minister may cancel a visa if he or she is satisfied that certain grounds specified in that provision are made out. Relevantly to this case, these include the grounds set out in s.116(1)(g) which states the Minister may cancel a visa if he or she is satisfied that a prescribed ground for cancelling a visa applies to the holder.
The Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth) (the Regulations) may prescribe circumstances in which a visa is not to be, or must be, cancelled: s.116(2) and (3). Further, the Regulations may prescribe matters to which the Minister must, must not, or may, have regard in determining whether a ground for cancellation is made out under s.116(1), (1AA), (1AB) or (1AC), and the weight to be given to such matter: s.116(1A).
If the decisionmaker is satisfied that the ground for cancellation is made out, and that any circumstances prescribed under s.116(2) or (3) are not applicable, the decisionmaker must proceed to consider whether the visa should be cancelled. In determining whether the visa should be cancelled, the decisionmaker must have regard to all relevant circumstances, which may include matters prescribed under s.116(1A) and other matters of government policy.
Use of Interpreter
The Tribunal was provided with a copy of the Notice of Intention to consider cancellation under s.116 (form 1099) dated and signed [date] December 2024, and a copy of the notification of decision, dated and signed [date] December 2024 and the record of the decision whether to cancel the visa by the review applicant when he lodged the application for review. The Tribunal was also provided with a copy of the Department file which included four audio recordings of the interview with the applicant. The Tribunal is satisfied that the applicant was interviewed by the Department officers, and the interview was conducted in English without the assistance of an interpreter on [date] December 2024.
At the commencement of the first interview on [date] December 2024 the Department officer states the interview would be conducted in English, and the applicant confirms he could understand the Department officer.
The Tribunal has listened to the audio recordings, which are consistent with the notes made by the Department officers on the Notice of Intention to consider cancellation under s.116, the record of decision whether to cancel and the notification of decision. The Tribunal is satisfied that the answers given by the applicant in the interviews were appropriate to the questions asked, the applicant answered promptly and appropriately to the questions asked, and where appropriate the applicant provided detailed and complex answers. The Tribunal also notes that the Departmental officer often repeated the applicant’s answers to confirm the information provided by the applicant. The Tribunal is satisfied that the applicant understood the questions of the Departmental officer in the interview, and communicated appropriately in English with the Departmental officer. The Tribunal is satisfied that the information provided by the applicant in the interview conducted in English, was appropriately given and is reliable information.
The applicant requested the assistance of an interpreter in the hearing. For this reason the Tribunal had arranged an interpreter to assist in the hearing. The Tribunal is cognisant of the benefits to an applicant to be able to participate in a hearing in their first language. The Tribunal respects the preference of the applicant to request the assistance of an interpreter, and to have the benefit of the assistance of an interpreter in the hearing. The Tribunal is cognisant that some matters discussed in the hearing can be complex, and the assistance of an interpreter allows the Tribunal to be satisfied that an applicant fully understands all the questions, and is able to provide detailed answers.
The applicant answered some questions in English, and also utilised the assistance of the interpreter during the hearing. When the first interpreter was no longer connected to the hearing, the Tribunal considered it appropriate to adjourn the hearing temporarily until another interpreter could be arranged to assist the applicant when and if he required interpreter assistance.
The Tribunal is satisfied that the applicant participated in the hearing in a manner which demonstrated he understood the questions, and provided answers which were appropriate to the question. The Tribunal is satisfied that the applicant communicated and participated in the hearing in a manner which showed he comprehended the process and the issues being discussed.
S.116(1)(g) - Does the ground for cancellation exist?
A visa may be cancelled under s.116(1)(g) if the Minister is satisfied that a prescribed ground for cancelling the visa applies to the applicant. The prescribed grounds for cancellation are set out in reg 2.43 of the Regulations. In the present case the prescribed ground in reg 2.43(1)(m) is relevant.
If a visa may be cancelled under s.116(1)(g), prescribed circumstances may also exist in which a visa is not to, or must, be cancelled pursuant to s.116(2) and (3). There are currently no prescribed circumstances that apply.
The relevant prescribed ground in reg.2.43(1)(m) requires that the Minister reasonably suspects that the holder of the visa has committed an offence under section 232A, 233, 234 or 236 of the Act.
In the Notice of Intention to consider cancellation under s.116 the Department officer recorded that the prescribed ground that applied for the purposes of s.116(1)(g), is set out in reg 2.43 (1)(m) of the Regulations, and the relevant section is s.234.
S.234 of the Act applies to false documents and false or misleading information relating to noncitizens, and states (1) a person shall not, in connection with the entry, proposed entry or immigration clearance, of a noncitizen (including that person himself or herself) into Australia or with an application for a visa or a further visa permitting a non-person (including that person himself or herself) to remain in Australia:
(a) present, or cause to be presented, to an officer or a person exercising powers or performing functions under this Act, a document which is forged or false;
(b) make, or cause to be made, to an officer or a person exercising powers or performing functions under this Act, a statement that, to the person’s knowledge, is false or misleading in a material particular; or
(c) deliver, or cause to be delivered, to an officer or a person exercising powers or performing functions under this Act, or otherwise furnish, or cause to be furnished for official purposes of the Commonwealth, a document containing a statement or information that is false or misleading in a material particular.
S.234(2) states a person shall not transfer or part with possession of a document:
(a) with intent that the document be used to help a person, being a person not entitled to use it, to gain entry, or to remain in, Australia or to be immigration cleared; or
(b) where the person has reason to suspect that the document may be so used.
S.234 prescribes the penalty for breaching the requirements of this section are imprisonment for 10 years, or 1000 penalty units, or both.
Assessment of the evidence
The Notice of Intention to consider cancellation under s.116 sets out that the applicant arrived in Australia on [date] December 2024 as the holder of a Bridging B visa which was granted whilst his application for a subclass 500 Student visa is being processed. The notice sets out that on arrival the applicant’s baggage and telephone were searched, and documents were located on the applicant’s mobile phone. The documents that were initially located on the applicant’s mobile phone included a [Country 1] work permit and drivers licence related to two individuals who are noncitizens, one of whom had been granted a visitor visa, which had been subsequently cancelled by the Department.
The Notice of Intention to consider cancellation under s.116 sets out that in the interview the applicant stated that his friend [Mr A] who is an immigration agent and owns a migration agency with the name of [Agent 1] located in [State 1] in [Country 2], had sent the applicant documents in relation to visitor visa applications for persons. The applicant listed the documents that had been provided in relation to the noncitizens including [Country 1] licences, [Country 1] bank accounts, [Country 1] permanent residency cards, and [Country 1] bank statements. The applicant provided the names of three [persons]. The Notice further states that the applicant stated in the interview that [Mr A] had sent the applicant the documents, asked the applicant to lodge the visitor visa applications using his personal immi account and that the applicant lodged the visitor visa applications on behalf of [Mr A] using his personal immi account. The Notice further sets out that the applicant stated in the interview that the visa applications he lodged were refused because fake documents had been provided in support of the visa applications, that he contacted [Mr A] after the applications were refused and [Mr A] stated he had supplied fake documents to the applicant. The Notice sets out that the applicant did not do anything regarding the visa refusals.
Attachment ‘B’ to the Notice of Intention to consider cancellation under s.116 also includes the information that the applicant had stated he was told by [Mr A] that upon arrival of the noncitizens into Australia, the applicant would receive payment in [Country 2]. In this notice it is set out that the applicant was aware fake documents were provided in support of the visa applications. The applicant told the Departmental officer in his response to the Notice of Intention to consider cancellation under s.116 that he did not dispute the allegations that he had provided fake documents in support of the visa applications that he had lodged on his personal immi account.
In the Department’s decision record, the Departmental officer concludes that the applicant did not dispute the evidence of the documents located on his mobile phone search. The applicant provided information about lodging visitor visa applications for noncitizens using his personal immi account. The applicant told the Departmental officer that his friend the immigration agent in [State 1], [Country 2], [Mr A], had told him the documents were false, the applicant stated the visa applications were refused as a result of the documents provided being false, and the applicant stated he would receive money for lodging the applications.
On the date of the hearing the Tribunal received a submission from the applicant’s representative. The representative submits that the applicant arrived at the airport on [date] December 2024 and there was a search of his baggage and his mobile phone, and documents including a [Country 1] work permit and drivers licence belonging to noncitizens were located on his phone, and it was revealed a visitor visa had been granted to one of those persons but was subsequently cancelled by the Department. The representative submitted that the applicant had assisted his friend [Mr A], a migration agent and owner of a migration agency “[Agent 1]” located in [State 1], [Country 2], and that the applicant had admitted that he used his personal immi account to lodge visa applications for three individuals, and that [Mr A] had sent him the documents.
The representative submitted that the applicant had uploaded the documents through his laptop but not through his personal immi account. The representative also submitted that the applicant was not aware that the documents were fraudulent and that his role was therefore limited and was not an attempt to defraud the system.
The representative also submitted that the applicant was promised payment in [Country 2] but no payment was received and this demonstrates his motivation was not financial but rather an effort to assist a friend.
In the hearing the applicant stated that he did not use his own personal immi account, but lodged the applications on his laptop. The applicant stated that he lodged the visitor visa applications at the request of [Mr A]. The applicant stated he used his own personal immi account to lodge his own visa applications but did not use this account to lodge the visitor visa applications for the noncitizens at the request of [Mr A]. The Tribunal asked the applicant why [Mr A] requested him to lodge the applications if they were not lodged through his personal immi account. The Tribunal discussed with the applicant that his evidence is that [Mr A] runs a migration agency called [Agent 1], and discussed with the applicant that there is access to the Internet in [State 1], [Country 2]. The Tribunal discussed with the applicant that if the use of his personal immi account to lodge the visitor visa applications was not the reason why [Mr A] asked the applicant to lodge the visa applications, it was not clear why the applicant was involved in lodging the applications at all.
The applicant stated that [Mr A] was a friend. The applicant stated that his friend works for [Country 1]. The applicant stated that his friend had asked him to lodge the visitor visa applications. The applicant gave evidence that [Mr A] asked him to lodge the applications for the visitor visas because he had lodged a previous visa application. The applicant gave evidence that [Mr A] is a migration agent, who Tribunal would also have experience lodging visa applications.
The Tribunal discussed with the applicant the information that was in the Department’s record of decision, a copy which the applicant had provided to the Tribunal, namely that the applicant had told the Departmental officer in the interview, that he had lodged the visitor visa applications for the noncitizens by using his personal immi account. The applicant stated he did not use his personal immi account but did lodge the applications on his laptop.
The Tribunal is satisfied that the applicant stated to the Departmental officer in the interview that he lodged the visitor visa applications using his own personal account.
The Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant was requested by [Mr A] to lodge the visitor visa applications, simply as a friend. The Tribunal has considered the information before it, and does not accept that [Mr A], who runs an immigration agency is not able to lodge visitor visa applications online from his own agency. The applicant lodged the applications, and he says he was asked to do so by [Mr A], a migration agent. The Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant has provided a credible explanation why the migration agent did not lodge the visitor visa applications himself offshore, or why the applicant was requested to lodge the visitor visa applications.
The applicant stated in the interview, as recorded in the Notice and in the Department’s record of decision, that [Mr A] had stated he would be paid in [Country 2] if the noncitizens were granted visas and arrived in Australia. The applicant’s representative provided a written submission that the applicant would receive payment in [Country 2], but this payment was never made. The Tribunal accepts that if the payment to the applicant was conditional upon the noncitizens being granted visitor visas and arriving in Australia, that the payment was not made as the visitor visas were either refused, or granted and then cancelled. The Tribunal does not accept the submission of the applicant’s representative that this indicates that the applicant was not motivated by a monetary interest. The Tribunal is satisfied that if payment was offered, then the applicant did have a financial interest in the arrangement to lodge the applications for the visitor visas.
The applicant stated in the hearing that he was going to be paid, but only a small administrative fee. The applicant stated that he did not receive the administrative fee because the visas were refused. The Tribunal discussed with the applicant that if the fee he was to be paid was an administrative fee for lodging the applications, then it would seem logical that the administrative fee would be paid for undertaking the administrative duty of lodging the applications, and therefore the fee would be paid regardless of whether the visas were granted and the noncitizens arrived in Australia as the holder of visitor visas. The Tribunal does not accept the applicant’s evidence that he was only going to be paid a small administrative fee.
The applicant stated he was not aware that the documents were fake. The applicant stated in the interview and in the hearing, that he became aware the documents were fake after reading the refusal decision that the applications for the visitor visas were refused because the documents provided in support of the applications were fraudulent. The applicant stated in the interview and in his evidence in the hearing that in his conversation with his friend the migration agent [Mr A], it was confirmed that the documents were fraudulent.

S.234 sets out the offences for a person presenting or causing to be presented, documents which are forged or false, in connection with the entry, proposed entry or immigration clearance of noncitizens with an application for a visa or a further visa permitting a person to remain in Australia. The applicant lodged the applications for the visitor visas in relation to visa applicants whom he did not know. The applicant stated that when he asked [Mr A], he was told the documents provided with the applications for the visas were fake or fraudulent.
The Tribunal has considered the submission of the applicant’s representative that the applicant was unaware of the documents were fraudulent at the time he uploaded the documents through his laptop. The Tribunal has considered that there are no submissions or evidence before it that the applicant at any time made any enquiry as to the genuineness of the documents that [Mr A] had provided to the applicant prior to lodging the applications for the visas. The Tribunal has assessed the evidence of the applicant in relation to the payment he anticipated receiving for lodging the applications for the visas, and finds the applicant has not provided credible or reliable evidence in relation to the anticipated payment. The Tribunal is satisfied that the applicant anticipated receiving payment for lodging the applications for the visas.
The Tribunal has considered there is an insufficient explanation before it as to why the applicant was asked by the migration agent in [Country 2] to lodge the visitor visa applications. The Tribunal is satisfied that the documents lodged with the applications for the visas were fraudulent, and were lodged by the applicant. The most positive assessment the Tribunal makes based on the evidence before it is that the applicant made no enquiries as to the genuineness of the documents he was submitting with the applications for the visitor visas prior to lodging the applications. The Tribunal acknowledges the possibility that the applicant was aware the documents he was lodging with the applications for the visas were fraudulent at the time the applications were lodged.
The Tribunal is satisfied that the applicant lodged the applications for the visitor visas, and therefore presented or caused to be presented to the Department, or an officer or person exercising powers or performing functions under the Act, documents which are forged or false in connection with the entry, proposed entry or immigration clearance, of a noncitizens into Australia or with an application for a visa or a further visa to remain in Australia.
The Tribunal therefore finds that there are grounds to reasonably suspect that a applicant has committed an offence under s.234 of the Act, and therefore the prescribed ground for cancellation of the visa as set out in reg 2.43(1)(m) exists.
The Tribunal is satisfied that the visa may be cancelled under s.116(1)(g), as the prescribed ground for cancelling visa applies to the applicant. For these reasons, the Tribunal is satisfied that the ground for cancellation in s.116(1)(g) exists. As that ground does not require mandatory cancellation under s.116(3), the Tribunal must proceed to consider whether the power to cancel the visa should be exercised.
Consideration of discretion
Except for visas cancelled on the basis of a breach of visa condition under s.116(1)(b), there are no matters specified in the Act or Regulations that must be considered in the exercise of this discretion. The Tribunal has had regard to the circumstances of this case, including matters raised by the applicant, and matters in the Department’s policy guidelines (General visa cancellation powers (s.109, s.116, s.128, s.134B and s.140)) which refer to matters such the consequences of cancelling the visa, international obligations and any other relevant matters.
The purpose of the applicant’s travel to and stay in Australia, including whether the applicant has a compelling need to travel to or remain in Australia: – the Tribunal is satisfied that the applicant’s purpose of travel to Australia is that his [partner] is in Australia. The applicant stated he had been in Australia for approximately five years and has completed his study. The applicant stated his [partner] came to Australia in 2023. The Tribunal is satisfied that the applicant and his [partner] are currently separated. The Tribunal accepts that the applicant and his [partner] had previously resided at [Address 1], but the applicant does not reside at this address with his [partner]. The Tribunal accepts that the applicant’s [partner] has applied for a student visa, and the applicant had applied for a student visa as her dependent, and this visa application is currently being processed. The Tribunal accepts the evidence of the applicant that his [partner]’s parents are currently staying with her, and in Australia as the holder of visitor visas. The Tribunal accepts the evidence of the applicant that his mother returned with him from [Country 2] on [date] December 2024 and she is currently staying at his friend’s place who had met them at the airport. The applicant stated that he had hoped his mother would assist him to meet with his [partner] and her parents, and discuss a form of reconciliation. The applicant stated that he and his [partner] did not have children, but his [partner] had experienced a miscarriage in 2024 which had been one of the reasons contributing to the breakdown of their [relationship].
The applicant stated that his main focus for remaining in Australia would be his family, by which he stated he meant his [partner] and trying to resolve their issues and fix things. The applicant stated his [partner] had not been in contact with him after he had been in detention, but his mother had called him in detention. The applicant stated his name was still on the tenancy agreement and utility bills at the home in [Address 1].
The applicant stated he completed [qualifications]. The applicant stated he has worked as a [occupation], and was confident he could resume his employment [in] Melbourne if he remained in Australia. The applicant stated he had financial reasons for wishing to remain in Australia. The applicant stated he owned a vehicle worth approximately $26,000, with a loan outstanding of $20,000 on the vehicle. The applicant stated the vehicle was parked at his friend’s place. The applicant stated he also contributed to the financial expenses to the home at [Address 1]. The applicant stated his [partner] was currently employed.
The Tribunal accepts the evidence of the applicant that his parents, and his married brother reside in [Country 2]. The applicant stated he would be able to work if he returned to [Country 2], as a farmer.
The Tribunal is satisfied that the purpose of the applicant’s travel to and wish to remain in Australia is to attempt to reconcile with his [partner]. It is relevant that the applicant and his [partner] have resided in Australia together for a relatively short period of time, and are currently separated. It is relevant that the applicant and his [partner] do not have any children. For these reasons, the Tribunal is not satisfied there are compelling reasons for the applicant to travel to or remain in Australia.
The Tribunal is satisfied that the applicant completed his study, and has employment available as a [occupation], and some financial commitments. The Tribunal is also satisfied that the applicant’s parents and brother reside in [Country 2], and the applicant can obtain work in [Country 2]. However the Tribunal accepts the applicant wishes to remain in Australia to attempt to reconcile and resolve his relationship with his [partner]. While the Tribunal is not satisfied that the visa holder has a compelling need to travel to or remain in Australia, the Tribunal assesses that the purpose of the applicant’s travel to and wish to remain in Australia is a consideration that it gives weight in favour against cancellation of the visa.
The extent of compliance with the Visa conditions: – there is no evidence before the Tribunal that the applicant has not complied with the conditions to which his visas have been subject, and the Tribunal gives this weight in favour against cancellation of the visa.
The degree of hardship that may be caused to the visa holder and any family members (including financial, psychological, emotional or other hardship): – the Tribunal is satisfied that the applicant has resided in Australia for approximately five years and has completed his study. The Tribunal is satisfied that the applicant obtained employment, but not in his field of study. The Tribunal is satisfied the applicant can obtain employment if his visa is cancelled and he returns to [Country 2]. The Tribunal is satisfied that the applicant’s parents and married brother reside in [Country 2]. These factors do not indicate that the applicant would experience any form of hardship if the visa was cancelled. Conversely, the Tribunal is satisfied that the applicant’s [partner] is currently in Australia, waiting on the outcome of an application for a further student visa, and the applicant would experience psychological or emotional hardship if he was unable to remain in Australia to attempt to reconcile with his [partner]. The Tribunal is further satisfied that the applicant’s [partner] may experience some limited financial hardship if the applicant was unable to provide financial support for her in the form of contribution to the rent and utility bills at the house where they used to reside together. The Tribunal assesses the degree of hardship that may be caused to the applicant and to his estranged [partner] and gives this consideration weight in favour against cancellation of the visa.
The circumstances in which the ground of cancellation arose: – the Tribunal is satisfied that the applicant agreed to lodge applications for visitor visas at the request of a migration agent from [State 1], [Country 2] who is a friend of the applicant. The Tribunal is satisfied that the applicant was to receive payment for lodging these applications for visitor visas. The Tribunal is satisfied that the applicant lodged the applications for visitor visas, with fraudulent documents. The Tribunal is satisfied that the applications for the visitor visas were either refused, or granted and then cancelled, on the basis of the fraudulent documents provided with the applications for the visitor visas by the applicant. The Tribunal satisfied based on the evidence before it that the applicant anticipated receiving payment for lodging the applications for the visas.
The Tribunal is satisfied that the applicant lodged the fraudulent documents in connection with the applications for visitor visas. The Tribunal is satisfied that the applicant, at best made no enquiries as to the genuineness of the documents he was submitting with the applications for the visitor visas. The Tribunal is not satisfied that there were extenuating circumstances beyond the applicant’s control that led to the ground for cancellation, as the decision to lodge the applications for the visa was made by the applicant, and any enquiries about the genuineness of the documents could have been made by the applicant prior to lodging the applications. The applicant stated that when he asked [Mr A] about whether the documents were fraudulent he was told they were.
The Tribunal discussed with the applicant the seriousness of lodging fraudulent and fake documents with applications for visas. The Tribunal discussed with the applicant that lodging applications for visas undermines the visa system, and can impact the assessment and processing of visa applications for hundreds of applicants. The Tribunal gives the consideration of the circumstances in which the ground of cancellation arose weight in favour of cancellation of the visa.
The past and present behaviour of the applicant towards the Department: – the Tribunal is satisfied that the applicant was generally cooperative with the Department. The Tribunal gives the past and present behaviour of the applicant towards the Department weight in favour against cancellation of the visa.
Consequential cancellations: – the Tribunal is satisfied that there are no persons whose visa would be consequentially cancelled pursuant to s.140 of the Act as a result of the cancellation of the applicant’s visa. The Tribunal gives this consideration neutral weight, neither in favour of or against cancellation of the visa.
International obligations: – the Tribunal is satisfied that there are no children of the relationship with his [partner], and the Tribunal is satisfied that it is not required to consider the interests of a child when considering the cancellation of the applicant’s visa. The Tribunal is satisfied that there is no evidence and no claim that the applicant would experience any persecution such as would breach Australia’s non-refoulement obligations if he was required to return to his home country, [Country 2]. The Tribunal is satisfied that the cancellation of the visa would not breach Australia’s international obligations pursuant to the Convention on the Rights of the Child, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the Convention relating to the Status of Refugees and the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. The Tribunal gives this consideration neutral weight, neither in favour of or against cancellation of the visa.
Mandatory legal consequences: – the Tribunal is satisfied that the cancellation of the applicant’s visa can lead to detention is an unlawful citizen pursuant to s.189 of the Act, and further that the applicant is currently in detention. There is no evidence in this review of the possible consequence of indefinite detention as a result of the cancellation of the applicant’s visa. The Tribunal is satisfied that the mandatory legal consequences can include the applicant being removed from Australia, and the limitations in relation to future visa applications pursuant to s.48 of the Act and exclusion periods in relation to future visa applications pursuant to PIC 4013. The Tribunal gives this consideration weight in favour against cancellation of the visa.
Other relevant matters: – the Tribunal has considered the matters raised in the applicant’s representative’s submission, which was provided online and at the hearing. The Tribunal has considered the length of time the applicant has resided in Australia, and the fact he has studied and worked in Australia, and has ties to Australia. The applicant has been in Australia for approximately five years and is now aged [age] years. The representative refers to the applicant’s formative teenage years in the country, but the Tribunal does not consider the applicant spent his teenage years in Australia. The Tribunal has considered the applicant completed his study, and then obtained work but not in his field of study. The applicant has applied for a further temporary visa, and is currently awaiting the processing of an application for a student visa as the dependent of his [partner]. The Tribunal gives this other relevant matter weight in favour against cancellation of the visa.
The representative submits that the applicant has demonstrated sincere remorse and understands the gravity of his role in this matter, and does not wish to repeat his mistakes. The Tribunal accepts that the applicant indicated to the Departmental officer in the interview that he did not dispute the grounds for the visa cancellation and that he felt guilty for doing it, as reported in the record of decision. The Tribunal notes that in the hearing the applicant stated he did not use his own personal immi account, he did not know the documents were fraudulent before he lodged them, he did not get payment, and he was only going to be paid a small administrative fee. The Tribunal has assessed the applicant’s evidence in the hearing, and the Tribunal does not analyse the applicant’s oral evidence as indicating remorse, but rather analyses the applicant’s evidence as indicating he distances himself from taking responsibility or being remorseful. The Tribunal is not satisfied the applicant has demonstrated through his oral evidence at the hearing any sincere remorse, rehabilitation, or undertaking that the applicant is unlikely to repeat the behaviour. The Tribunal accepts there is no evidence of previous misconduct. However, the Tribunal gives this consideration of other relevant matters of the applicant’s claims of remorse and rehabilitation, neutral weight neither in favour of or against cancellation of the visa.
Conclusion
The Tribunal has considered all the circumstances as assessed above as a whole. As discussed in the hearing the Tribunal finds the circumstances in which the ground for cancellation arose, as significant and serious. The Tribunal has assessed the circumstances in which the ground for cancellation, arose namely the lodging of visa applications with several fraudulent documents attached, undermines the visa application process. The circumstances that include providing visa applications with false documents impacts the processing and assessing of visa applications, and impacts so many visa applicants. The Tribunal finds this consideration outweighs all the other considerations. Considering the circumstances as a whole, the Tribunal concludes that the visa should be cancelled.
DECISION
The Tribunal affirms the decision to cancel the applicant’s Subclass 020 Bridging B (Class WB) visa.
Date(s) of hearing: 23 December 2024
Representative for the Applicant: Mr Mandeep Singh (MARN: 1802739)