CHIU (Migration)

This matter concerned an application for review of a delegate of the Minister for Immigration's decision to cancel the applicant's Subclass 020 (Bridging B) visa under s.109(1) of the Migration Act 1958. The cancellation was based on the applicant having provided incorrect information in her application for a Working Holiday (Extension) (Onshore) (417) visa, specifically regarding her employment history. The applicant had stated she worked for a particular business for a specified period, but the owner of that business advised the Department that she had never been employed there.

The Tribunal was required to determine whether the ground for cancellation was made out and, if so, whether the visa should be cancelled. The legal issue centred on whether the applicant had failed to comply with s.101(b) of the Act by providing incorrect information in her visa application, and whether the delegate had followed the correct procedure under s.107 of the Act in issuing the Notice of Intention to Consider Cancellation (NOICC).

The Tribunal reasoned that under s.109 of the Act, the Minister may cancel a visa if the holder has failed to comply with certain provisions, including s.101, which requires visa applicants to provide no incorrect answers. The Tribunal noted that s.100 of the Act clarifies that an answer is incorrect even if the applicant did not know it was incorrect. The Tribunal was satisfied that the NOICC issued under s.107 complied with statutory requirements and sufficiently particularised the alleged non-compliance. Despite the applicant's explanation that a migration agent had submitted the incorrect information without her knowledge, the Tribunal found that the applicant was responsible for the incorrect information provided in her application.

The Tribunal affirmed the decision to cancel the applicant's Subclass 020 (Bridging B) visa, concluding that the applicant had provided incorrect information in her Working Holiday (Extension) visa application, which was a basis for cancellation.