Chen (Migration)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal reviewed a decision by the Department of Home Affairs to cancel Mr Chen's Temporary Skill Shortage (Class GK) visa (subclass 482). The cancellation was based on allegations that Mr Chen had provided incorrect information regarding his employment history in China and had submitted a bogus document, specifically an employment reference, in support of his visa application. These alleged breaches were purportedly contrary to sections 101(b) and 103 of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth), which require visa applicants to provide correct information and not submit bogus documents.

The Tribunal was required to determine whether Mr Chen had indeed failed to comply with sections 101(b) and 103 of the Act, and if so, whether his visa should be cancelled under section 109. The Department's case rested on the assertion that Mr Chen's claimed employment with Yurun Group Hefei Wanrun Foods Co Ltd from December 2014 to May 2019 was unsubstantiated, as the parent company, Nanjing Yurun Foods Co. Ltd, had no record of his employment for that duration. This led to the conclusion that his employment reference was a bogus document.

The Tribunal found that the decision to cancel Mr Chen's visa should be set aside. It reasoned that the Department had placed undue weight on discrepancies arising from the complex contracting arrangements common in China, and the passage of time and company upheavals affecting record-keeping. Crucially, the Tribunal noted that Mr Chen possessed demonstrable and rigorously assessed meat processing skills, which were essential for his visa grant and his subsequent employment in Australia. The Tribunal concluded that the evidence, including a clarification letter from a former executive of the Chinese company and Mr Chen's successful skills assessment by MINTRAC, provided plausible explanations for the perceived inconsistencies. The Tribunal found that Mr Chen had not provided incorrect information or a bogus document, and therefore, the grounds for cancellation under section 109 of the Act were not met.