Cahill (Migration)

This matter concerned an appeal by the applicant against the cancellation of her Subclass 417 (Working Holiday) visa. The applicant had provided incorrect answers in her second extension application, specifically regarding six months of specified work in a regional area. Verification checks indicated she had not worked at the claimed business. The applicant conceded non-compliance but sought to demonstrate why her visa should not be cancelled, citing personal hardship, including mental health struggles following the death of her partner, her strong support network in Australia, and her intention to apply for permanent residency.

The legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the applicant had failed to comply with the requirements of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth) by providing incorrect information in her visa application, and if so, whether the discretion to cancel her visa should be exercised. The Tribunal was required to consider the applicant's reasons for non-compliance and the potential hardship she would face if her visa were cancelled, in light of the legislative framework governing visa applications and cancellations.

The Tribunal found that the applicant had indeed failed to comply with section 101 of the *Migration Act 1958* by providing incorrect answers in her visa application, a fact she conceded. The Tribunal considered the applicant's personal circumstances, including her mental health, her support network, and her desire to remain in Australia to pursue permanent residency. However, it also noted that the applicant had provided incorrect answers in a previous visa application through a different third party and had not approached the Department to discuss her difficulties or explore visa options prior to lodging her most recent application. Having regard to all the relevant circumstances, the Tribunal concluded that the decision to cancel the applicant's visa was affirmed.