CHU (Migration)

This matter concerned an appeal to the Tribunal by an applicant whose Subclass 417 Working Holiday (Extension) visa was cancelled. The dispute arose from the applicant's answers provided in their visa application, specifically regarding undertaking specified work in regional Australia. The applicant had stated they had completed three months of such work, providing details of an employer and dates, which led to the grant of the visa. However, subsequent information suggested the applicant had not worked for the purported business, raising issues about the accuracy of the information provided.

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 without incorrect answers. The Tribunal also had to consider whether, if non-compliance was established, the visa should be cancelled. Central to this was the validity and compliance of the Notice of Intention to Consider Cancellation (NOICC) issued by the delegate under section 107 of the Act.

The Tribunal found that the delegate had properly engaged section 107 and that the NOICC complied with statutory requirements. The Tribunal was satisfied that the applicant had provided incorrect answers in their visa application, specifically concerning the details of their farm work, and that this constituted non-compliance with section 101. The Tribunal noted that an answer is considered incorrect under section 100 of the Act even if the applicant was unaware of its inaccuracy. Given the established non-compliance and having regard to all relevant circumstances, the Tribunal affirmed the decision to cancel the applicant's visa.