Chao (Migration)

This matter concerned the applicant, Chao, and the cancellation of his Subclass 500 (Student) visa. The dispute arose from allegations that the applicant had provided incorrect information in a previous visa application, specifically regarding regional work undertaken for a Working Holiday (Extension) visa. The decision under review was made by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT), presided over by Member Wendy Banfield.

The primary legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the applicant had failed to comply with section 101(b) of the Migration Act 1958 by providing incorrect information in his visa application, and if so, whether the cancellation of his visa was the appropriate course of action. The Tribunal was required to consider the validity of the notice issued under section 107 of the Act and the applicant's response to that notice, including his claims of reliance on an agent and the absence of independent evidence to substantiate his claimed employment.

The Tribunal reasoned that section 109 of the Migration Act 1958 permits the Minister to cancel a visa if the visa holder has failed to comply with certain provisions, including section 101, which mandates that visa applications be completed without incorrect answers. The Tribunal found that the notice issued under section 107 complied with statutory requirements and that the applicant had indeed provided incorrect information when stating he had completed three months of specified regional work for his Working Holiday (Extension) visa. Despite the applicant's assertion that he had been misled by an agent and his inability to provide independent evidence of his employment, the Tribunal concluded that the lack of corroborating evidence meant the claimed employment details were not substantiated. Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the decision to cancel the applicant's Subclass 500 (Student) visa.