Coffey (Migration)
Case
•
[2021] AATA 5393
•26 November 2021
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Coffey (Migration) [2021] AATA 5393
[2021] AATA 5393
26 November 2021
CaseChat Overview and Summary
This matter concerned an application for review of a decision by a delegate of the Minister for Home Affairs to cancel the applicant's Subclass 417 (Working Holiday) visa under section 109(1) of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth). The applicant, an Irish citizen, had been granted the visa on 16 July 2020. The delegate issued a notice of intention to consider cancellation on 27 April 2021, alleging the applicant had provided false information in his visa application by claiming to have completed at least three months of specified work in regional Australia, which was a requirement for a second Working Holiday visa.
The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicant had failed to comply with section 101(b) of the Act by providing incorrect answers in his visa application form. Specifically, the Tribunal had to determine if the applicant had, in fact, undertaken the declared three months of specified work with the employer "EKC" and if the information provided regarding this employment was therefore incorrect. The Tribunal was also required to consider the delegate's decision to cancel the visa under section 109(1) of the Act, having regard to the applicant's responses and any further information provided.
The Tribunal found that the delegate had correctly identified that the applicant had provided incorrect information in his visa application. Employment verification checks with EKC revealed that the applicant had never worked for that company. Consequently, the applicant had not met the requirement of completing three months of specified work as a holder of a first Working Holiday visa. The Tribunal noted that section 100 of the Act provides that an answer is incorrect even if the person providing it did not know it was incorrect. The applicant's subsequent explanations, including claims of being misled by a visa agent, did not alter the fact that the information provided in the application was incorrect.
The Tribunal affirmed the delegate's decision to cancel the applicant's Subclass 417 (Working Holiday) visa.
The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicant had failed to comply with section 101(b) of the Act by providing incorrect answers in his visa application form. Specifically, the Tribunal had to determine if the applicant had, in fact, undertaken the declared three months of specified work with the employer "EKC" and if the information provided regarding this employment was therefore incorrect. The Tribunal was also required to consider the delegate's decision to cancel the visa under section 109(1) of the Act, having regard to the applicant's responses and any further information provided.
The Tribunal found that the delegate had correctly identified that the applicant had provided incorrect information in his visa application. Employment verification checks with EKC revealed that the applicant had never worked for that company. Consequently, the applicant had not met the requirement of completing three months of specified work as a holder of a first Working Holiday visa. The Tribunal noted that section 100 of the Act provides that an answer is incorrect even if the person providing it did not know it was incorrect. The applicant's subsequent explanations, including claims of being misled by a visa agent, did not alter the fact that the information provided in the application was incorrect.
The Tribunal affirmed the delegate's decision to cancel the applicant's Subclass 417 (Working Holiday) visa.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Immigration
-
Administrative Law
Legal Concepts
-
Judicial Review
-
Procedural Fairness
-
Statutory Construction
-
Natural Justice
-
Jurisdiction
-
Appeal
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Citations
Coffey (Migration) [2021] AATA 5393
Cases Citing This Decision
0
Cases Cited
1
Statutory Material Cited
0
Minister for Immigration and Citizenship v SZRKT
[2013] FCA 317
Minister for Immigration and Citizenship v SZRKT
[2013] FCA 317