Buete (Migration)

This matter concerned an appeal by the applicant against the cancellation of her Working Holiday (Temporary) (Class TZ) visa, Subclass 417. The dispute arose from incorrect answers provided in her second extension application for the visa, specifically regarding whether she had completed six months of specified work in a regional area while holding her first extension. Following the grant of the extension, verification checks with the purported employer, Pearl Recruitment Group (WA) Pty Ltd, revealed that the applicant had never worked for them. The applicant attempted to distance herself from the false information, claiming she was unaware her agent had provided it, but the Tribunal found this assertion to be unsubstantiated.

The Tribunal was required to determine whether the applicant had failed to comply with section 101(b) of the Migration Act 1958, which mandates that visa applications must not contain incorrect answers. The Tribunal also had to consider whether, if non-compliance was established, the discretion to cancel the visa should be exercised. The applicant's argument that she could trust her agent and was unaware of the false statements was central to her defence.

The Tribunal reasoned that under section 98 of the Migration Act, a non-citizen is taken to have filled in their application form if it is filled in on their behalf, and under section 100, an answer is considered incorrect even if the person providing it did not know it was incorrect. The Tribunal found that the applicant had provided incorrect answers regarding her specified work experience, and that the letters purportedly from her previous employer were actually written by the applicant. Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that there was non-compliance with section 101(b) of the Act.

The Tribunal affirmed the decision to cancel the applicant’s Subclass 417 (Working Holiday) visa.