Browne (Migration)

This matter concerned an appeal by Mr. Browne against the cancellation of his Working Holiday (Class TZ) visa, Subclass 417. The dispute arose from incorrect information provided in his application for a Working Holiday (Extension) visa, specifically regarding the completion of three months of specified work in a regional area. The Department of Home Affairs had verified with Pearl Recruitment Group that Mr. Browne had not been employed by them during the period claimed, leading to the cancellation of his visa under section 109 of the Migration Act 1958.

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal was required to determine whether Mr. Browne had failed to comply with the Act by providing incorrect information in his visa application, as particularised in the Notice of Intention to Consider Cancellation (NOICC). If non-compliance was established, the Tribunal then had to consider whether the visa should be cancelled, taking into account various factors including the circumstances of the non-compliance, the applicant's subsequent behaviour, and the best interests of his child.

The Tribunal found that Mr. Browne had indeed provided incorrect information regarding his employment with Pearl Recruitment Group, thereby failing to comply with section 101(b) of the Act. While acknowledging the uncertainties caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, border closures, and the subsequent pregnancy and premature birth of his child, the Tribunal gave these factors less weight because Mr. Browne did not approach the Department to discuss his situation or explore alternative options. The Tribunal considered factors weighing against cancellation, such as Mr. Browne's ongoing employment in a skills shortage area and the potential impact on his child, but ultimately concluded that these did not outweigh the seriousness of the non-compliance.

The Tribunal affirmed the decision to cancel Mr. Browne's Subclass 417 visa.