Clancy (Migration)

This matter concerned an appeal against the cancellation of a Subclass 417 (Working Holiday) (Extension) visa. The applicant had provided incorrect information in her visa application, specifically regarding her undertaking of three months of specified work in regional Australia. The delegate of the Minister issued a Notice of Intention to Consider Cancellation, detailing the alleged non-compliance with section 101(b) of the Migration Act 1958, which requires visa applicants to provide no incorrect answers. The applicant did not respond to this notice.

The Tribunal was required to determine whether the applicant had indeed failed to comply with section 101(b) of the Act by providing incorrect answers in her visa application, and if so, whether the cancellation of her visa should be affirmed. The core of the dispute centred on the applicant's claim of having undertaken specified work in regional Australia, which was a criterion for the visa extension.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's visa was granted partly on the basis of incorrect answers provided in her application. Specifically, the applicant had stated she had undertaken three months of specified work with Pearl Recruitment Group (WA) Pty Ltd in regional Western Australia, which was found to be untrue. The Tribunal considered this significant in favour of affirming the cancellation. The applicant's evidence during the hearing revealed she had worked in aged care and on a farm, but not for the duration or in the location claimed in her application. She explained her actions as a result of panic due to the COVID-19 pandemic and a desire to remain in Australia.

Ultimately, the Tribunal concluded that the grounds for cancelling the applicant's visa outweighed any grounds for not cancelling it. Therefore, the Tribunal affirmed the decision to cancel the applicant's Subclass 417 (Working Holiday) visa.