Chou (Migration)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal considered the cancellation of the applicant's Subclass 572 Vocational Education and Training Sector visa. The dispute arose from allegations that the applicant had provided incorrect information in a previous Working Holiday visa application, specifically regarding employment with a claimed employer. The applicant contended that a migration agent was responsible for the incorrect information due to his limited English proficiency.

The Tribunal was required to determine whether the applicant had failed to comply with section 101 of the Migration Act 1958, which mandates that visa applications must be completed accurately. Specifically, the Tribunal had to ascertain if the applicant provided incorrect information in his application for a Working Holiday visa, and if so, whether this non-compliance warranted the cancellation of his current Subclass 572 visa under section 109 of the Act. The validity of the notice issued under section 107 of the Act was also a consideration.

The Tribunal found that the notice issued under section 107 complied with statutory requirements and that the applicant had indeed failed to comply with section 101 of the Act. While acknowledging the applicant's reliance on a migration agent due to language barriers, the Tribunal held that the applicant remained ultimately responsible for the accuracy of his visa application, which he would have signed. The Tribunal gave no weight to the applicant's claims regarding the migration agent, as there was no evidence to support them. Furthermore, the pay slips provided by the applicant did not substantiate the required regional work for the previous visa.

Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the delegate's decision to cancel the applicant's Subclass 572 visa.