Chudal (Migration)

This matter concerned the review of a decision to cancel the applicant's Skilled Nominated (Permanent) (Class SN) visa, Subclass 190. The applicant had provided information in his visa application and subsequent forms indicating he was employed as an accountant for Sydney Telecom Pty Ltd and Education Park. The delegate's decision to cancel the visa was based on findings that the applicant had provided incorrect answers in his visa application, that his employer, Sydney Telecom, was deregistered, and that the applicant was not undertaking the duties of an accountant.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicant had provided incorrect answers in his visa application, thereby contravening section 101 of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth). This also involved determining whether the information provided about his employment and employer was false or misleading, leading to a failure to comply with the requirement that visa applications be correct. The Tribunal was required to consider the evidence presented regarding the applicant's employment claims and the status of his purported employer.

The Tribunal affirmed the decision to cancel the visa, finding that the applicant had indeed provided incorrect answers. This conclusion was based on evidence indicating that Sydney Telecom Pty Ltd was deregistered and that the applicant was not performing the duties of an accountant as claimed. The Tribunal applied the principles outlined in sections 99 and 100 of the *Migration Act*, which define information provided as an "answer" and stipulate that an answer is incorrect even if the applicant was unaware of its incorrectness. The Tribunal also had regard to the applicant's acknowledgments in his visa application regarding the seriousness of providing false or misleading information and the potential consequences, including visa cancellation.

The Tribunal concluded that there was non-compliance by the applicant as described in the notice given under section 107 of the Act. Having considered all relevant circumstances and evidence, the Tribunal affirmed the delegate's decision to cancel the applicant's Subclass 190 visa.