Chang (Migration)

This matter concerned an appeal by Mr. Chang (the applicant) against the cancellation of his Student (Temporary) (Class TU) Subclass 572 visa by the Department of Home Affairs. The visa was cancelled on the grounds that the applicant had provided incorrect information in his visa application, specifically regarding his date of birth and previous visa overstays and exclusions. The Department's delegate had issued a notice of intention to consider cancellation, detailing the alleged non-compliance with sections 101 and 109 of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth).

The primary legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the applicant had failed to comply with the requirements of the *Migration Act* by providing incorrect information in his visa application, and if so, whether the cancellation of his visa was warranted. The Tribunal was required to consider the evidence presented, including a facial image comparison and the applicant's immigration history, to determine if the delegate's decision to cancel the visa was validly made and whether the grounds for cancellation were established.

The Tribunal found that the applicant had indeed provided incorrect information in his visa application. A facial image comparison confirmed that the applicant, under different dates of birth, represented the same individual. This individual had previously overstayed a visa and was subject to a three-year exclusion period from Australia. The Tribunal concluded that the applicant had failed to declare his previous identity and immigration history accurately, thereby contravening section 101(b) of the Act. Consequently, the visa was liable for cancellation under section 109. While acknowledging the potential adverse consequences for the applicant, such as becoming an unlawful non-citizen and potential difficulties upon return to Malaysia, the Tribunal found these factors did not outweigh the seriousness of providing deliberately incorrect information to achieve a positive visa outcome.

The Tribunal affirmed the delegate's decision to cancel the applicant's visa. It was satisfied that the delegate had the necessary state of mind to engage section 107 of the Act and that the notice issued complied with statutory requirements. The Tribunal also addressed issues regarding the delegation of power to cancel the visa and the validity of a section 375A certificate, ultimately finding that these procedural matters did not invalidate the cancellation decision.