Auxenfants (Migration)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal considered the cancellation of the applicant's Working Holiday (Temporary) (Class TZ) visa, Subclass 417. The dispute arose from allegations that the applicant had provided incorrect information in her visa application, specifically regarding the completion of specified work required for the grant of her second Working Holiday visa.

The Tribunal was required to determine whether the applicant had failed to comply with section 101(b) of the Migration Act 1958 by providing incorrect information in her visa application. If non-compliance was established, the Tribunal then had to consider whether the decision to cancel the applicant's visa should be affirmed, taking into account all relevant circumstances.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's second Subclass 417 visa was granted based, in part, on her assertion that she had completed at least three months of specified work. Evidence later emerged indicating that the applicant had not undertaken this work at the stated employer. While the Tribunal accepted the applicant's explanation that she had encountered difficulties in securing sufficient farm work due to COVID-19 related restrictions and inclement weather, it did not accept that she was unaware of the visa criterion. The Tribunal also considered the applicant's current circumstances in Australia, including her employment and social connections, but ultimately concluded that these factors did not outweigh the seriousness of the non-compliance.

The Tribunal affirmed the decision to cancel the applicant's Subclass 417 visa, finding that there had been non-compliance as particularised in the notice issued under section 107 of the Act, and that cancellation was warranted in the circumstances.