Conroy (Migration)

This matter concerned the review of a decision to cancel the applicant's Subclass 417 (Working Holiday) visa. The dispute arose from the applicant's application for a Working Holiday (Extension) visa, lodged on 11 August 2020. The Department of Home Affairs initiated cancellation proceedings after verification checks indicated that the applicant had provided incorrect information regarding specified work undertaken in a regional area, which was a requirement for the visa extension. The case was heard by Meena Sripathy, a member of the Tribunal.

The primary legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the applicant had failed to comply with the requirements of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth) by providing incorrect information in their visa application, and if so, whether the decision to cancel the visa should be affirmed. Specifically, the Tribunal had to determine if the applicant had indeed failed to comply with section 101(b) of the Act, which mandates that visa applications must not contain incorrect answers. This involved assessing the validity of the notice of intention to cancel the visa issued under section 107 of the Act and the particulars of the alleged non-compliance.

The Tribunal's reasoning centred on the interpretation and application of sections 101 and 107 of the *Migration Act 1958*. The delegate had issued a notice of intention to cancel the visa, detailing the applicant's claim of having completed three months of specified work with Pearl Recruitment Group in Newman, Western Australia, between 2 March and 5 July 2020. Verification checks revealed that Pearl Recruitment Group stated the applicant had never worked for them during that period. The Tribunal found that the notice issued under section 107 complied with statutory requirements and that the applicant had provided incorrect information in their visa application, thereby failing to comply with section 101(b). The Tribunal noted that an answer is considered incorrect under section 100 of the Act, irrespective of whether the applicant knew it was incorrect.

Ultimately, the Tribunal affirmed the decision to cancel the applicant's Subclass 417 (Working Holiday) visa. The Tribunal concluded that the applicant had not complied with the Act as particularised in the notice and, having regard to all relevant circumstances, determined that the visa should be cancelled.