Chen (Migration)

This matter concerned an appeal by Mr. Jiahuai Chen against the cancellation of his Subclass 189 Skilled Independent visa. The visa was cancelled by the Department of Home Affairs on the grounds that Mr. Chen had provided incorrect information and bogus documents in support of his visa application, specifically concerning his claimed de facto relationship with Ms. Xiaomin Lin. The Tribunal was required to determine whether Mr. Chen had indeed failed to comply with the relevant provisions of the Migration Act 1958 and, if so, whether the cancellation of his visa was appropriate.

The core legal issues before the Tribunal were whether Mr. Chen had breached sections 101(b) and 103 of the Migration Act 1958. Section 101(b) requires a non-citizen to ensure that no incorrect answers are given in their visa application form, while section 103 prohibits the provision of bogus documents. The Tribunal had to consider the evidence presented, including forensic examinations of bank statements and a tenancy agreement, which indicated fraudulent alteration, and compare this with information provided in Mr. Chen's visa application and a previous Form 80, which declared no partner and a different residential address.

The Tribunal found that Mr. Chen had provided incorrect information regarding his de facto relationship status and the commencement date of that relationship on his visa application. Furthermore, the Tribunal was satisfied that the supporting documents, including bank statements and a Vodafone tax invoice, had been fraudulently altered, thus constituting bogus documents under section 5 of the Act. The Tribunal also noted that Mr. Chen had previously declared he had no partner in a Form 80 lodged with a prior visa application, which contradicted his later claim. Applying sections 101(b) and 103 of the Act, the Tribunal concluded that Mr. Chen had failed to comply with these provisions.

Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the decision to cancel Mr. Chen's Subclass 189 visa. The Tribunal considered Mr. Chen's response to the notice of intention to cancel and found that it did not sufficiently demonstrate cause why the visa should not be cancelled, given the established non-compliance.