Bhatti (Migration)

This matter concerned an appeal to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal regarding the cancellation of the applicant's Subclass 187 (Regional Sponsored Migration Scheme) visa. The dispute arose from allegations that the applicant had provided incorrect information in his visa application concerning his employment experience and the nature of his job tasks.

The Tribunal was required to determine whether the applicant had failed to comply with section 101(b) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) by providing false or misleading information in his application for a Subclass 187 visa. Specifically, the court needed to ascertain if the applicant's claimed role as a hairdresser at Mirrors Hair Studio, and the period of employment stated, were accurate, and if not, whether this constituted a ground for visa cancellation. The Tribunal also had to consider whether the notice issued under section 107 of the Act was valid and whether the delegate had properly exercised their discretion to cancel the visa.

The Tribunal found that the applicant had not complied with section 101(b) of the Act. Evidence from departmental integrity checks and a site visit indicated that the applicant did not work as a hairdresser for his sponsor, Purple Allium Pty Ltd trading as Mirrors Hair Studio. Instead, staff reported that his duties were primarily in a support role, including cleaning, making coffee, and assisting with administrative tasks, with only occasional shampooing of clients' hair. While the applicant claimed to have also worked as a mobile hairdresser, the Tribunal noted that the mobile service was not registered until after the period of claimed employment. The Tribunal was satisfied that the notice of cancellation complied with statutory requirements and affirmed the delegate's decision to cancel the visa.