Chun (Migration)

This matter concerned an appeal by Mr Chun against the Administrative Appeals Tribunal's affirmation of the Minister's decision to cancel his Subclass 143 (Contributory Parent) visa. The cancellation was based on Mr Chun's failure to declare a conviction for corporate bribery in his home country on his incoming passenger cards, which constituted non-compliance with his visa obligations. Mr Chun argued that he feared answering honestly would lead to refusal of entry, potential harm from associates of the bribe recipient, or further charges and imprisonment. He also raised concerns about his wife's health, his care for his grandchild, and the emotional and financial hardship that cancellation would cause his family.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the Minister had validly exercised the discretion to cancel Mr Chun's visa under section 109 of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth). This required determining if Mr Chun had failed to comply with the Act by not providing correct information on his passenger cards, and if the Minister had followed the correct procedural steps, including issuing a valid notice under section 107 of the Act. The Tribunal also had to consider whether the best interests of Mr Chun's grandchild were the sole primary consideration, and the weight to be given to other factors such as emotional and financial hardship, and the mandatory legal consequences of visa cancellation.

The Tribunal found that Mr Chun had indeed failed to comply with his obligations by not declaring his conviction. It was satisfied that the delegate had reached the necessary state of mind to engage section 107 and that the notice issued under that section complied with the statutory requirements. While acknowledging Mr Chun's genuine desire to be with his family and his care for his grandchild, the Tribunal found him to be vague and evasive regarding his claims of fear of harm in China and noted that his previous claims about caring for his brother were found to be untrue, as he was in fact in prison during that period. The Tribunal concluded that the best interests of the child were not the only primary consideration and that the mandatory legal consequences of cancellation, alongside the other factors presented, did not outweigh the grounds for cancellation.

The Tribunal affirmed the decision to cancel Mr Chun's visa.