Brar (Migration)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal considered the cancellation of a Student (Temporary) (Class TU) visa, subclass 500, held by the applicant, Brar. The dispute arose because the applicant's visa was granted based, in part, on a bank statement that was not genuinely issued to him, meaning he had provided a bogus document in his visa application. The Tribunal was required to determine whether the applicant had failed to comply with the requirements of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth) and, if so, whether the decision to cancel his visa should be affirmed.

The Tribunal was required to assess whether the applicant had provided a bogus document, as defined by section 5(1) of the Act, in support of a previous Visitor visa application. Specifically, the Tribunal examined a HDFC Bank (India) statement dated 15 May 2019, which purported to confirm a substantial balance in the applicant's account. The Tribunal also considered whether the notice issued under section 107 of the Act, informing the applicant of the alleged non-compliance, was valid and whether the cancellation power under section 109 of the Act was correctly engaged. The Tribunal noted that non-compliance under section 103 of the Act, relating to bogus documents, does not require the non-compliance to be deliberate, as section 111 of the Act applies to both deliberate and inadvertent breaches.

In its reasoning, the Tribunal found that the HDFC Bank statement was a bogus document, as the Minister reasonably suspected it was not genuinely issued in respect of the applicant. The Tribunal was satisfied that the delegate had reached the necessary state of mind to engage section 107 and that the notice issued under that section complied with statutory requirements, having been sent to the applicant's provided email address. The Tribunal considered various factors relevant to the discretion to cancel the visa, including potential consequential cancellations, mandatory legal consequences such as detention and removal, and the impact on future visa applications. It also considered the hardship caused to the applicant and his family, noting his claims of stress and relationship breakdown, but found these did not outweigh the seriousness of providing a bogus document. The Tribunal concluded that the applicant's failure to review the documents submitted in his name, leading to the decision to grant the visa being based partly on a bogus document, constituted a failure to comply with the Act.

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