Coates (Migration)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal reviewed a decision to cancel the Working Holiday (Temporary) (Class TZ) visa, subclass 417, held by the applicant. The dispute arose from allegations that the applicant provided incorrect information regarding six months of specified work in a regional area, which was a requirement for the extension of his visa.

The Tribunal was required to determine whether the applicant had failed to comply with section 101 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) by providing incorrect information in his visa application, and if so, whether the discretionary power to cancel his visa under section 109 of the Act should be exercised. The Tribunal also considered the circumstances surrounding the non-compliance and the potential hardship to the applicant and his partner if the visa were cancelled.

The Tribunal found that the applicant had indeed provided incorrect information regarding his employment, as verification checks indicated he had not worked for the stated employer during the specified period. This meant the visa was granted, in part, on the basis of this incorrect information. However, the Tribunal gave significant weight to the circumstances in which the non-compliance occurred. It noted the applicant's evidence of anxiety exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic, financial hardship, and concerns for his family abroad, which led him to engage a third party to complete and lodge his application without fully understanding its contents. The Tribunal acknowledged that the applicant was responsible for the false information but found that his actions were a result of unwise decision-making during a period of immense societal dislocation.

Ultimately, the Tribunal concluded that the decision to cancel the applicant's visa should be set aside. While acknowledging the incorrect information provided, the Tribunal found that the applicant's personal circumstances, including the impact of COVID-19 restrictions and his reliance on a third party due to his state of mind, weighed against cancellation. The Tribunal also considered the potential hardship to the applicant and his partner, noting the genuineness of their relationship and the impact of offshore relocation on future opportunities.