Cleary (Migration)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal considered the cancellation of the applicant's Subclass 417 (Working Holiday) visa. The dispute arose from allegations that the applicant had provided false information in their visa application, specifically regarding the completion of six months of regional work. The Tribunal was tasked with determining whether the applicant had indeed failed to comply with the requirements of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth) and, if so, whether the decision to cancel the visa should be affirmed.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicant had provided incorrect answers in their visa application, thereby contravening section 101(b) of the *Migration Act 1958*. This section mandates that visa applicants must ensure all questions are answered and that no incorrect answers are provided. The Tribunal also had to consider whether the notice of intention to cancel the visa, issued under section 107 of the Act, complied with statutory requirements and whether the subsequent cancellation decision under section 109 was justified.

The Tribunal found that the applicant had answered "Yes" to questions concerning the completion of at least six months of specified work and that all such work was undertaken during the validity of their second Working Holiday visa or a relevant bridging visa. However, the evidence indicated that the applicant had not completed the required six months of work with Quenby Viticultural Services, as detailed in their application. The Tribunal applied section 100 of the Act, which states that an answer is incorrect even if the applicant was unaware of its inaccuracy. Having determined that there was non-compliance as particularised in the notice, and considering the relevant circumstances, the Tribunal concluded that the cancellation of the visa was the correct and preferable decision.

The Tribunal affirmed the decision to cancel the applicant's Subclass 417 (Working Holiday) visa.