Delannoy (Migration)

This matter concerned an appeal by the applicant against the cancellation of his Subclass 417 (Working Holiday) (Extension) visa. The dispute arose from the applicant's visa application, where he stated he had undertaken three months of specified work in regional Australia. The Department of Home Affairs subsequently received information from the employer listed, Atlantic (Aust) Enterprise Pty Ltd trading as Adenco, indicating no record of the applicant's employment. The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) was tasked with determining whether the visa cancellation was justified.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicant had failed to comply with section 101(b) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth), which requires a non-citizen to complete their visa application without providing incorrect answers. This non-compliance was particularised in a Notice of Intention to Consider Cancellation (NOITCC) issued under section 107 of the Act. The Tribunal also had to consider whether the decision to grant the visa was based on this incorrect information and, if so, whether the grounds for cancellation outweighed any reasons not to cancel.

The Tribunal found that the applicant had indeed provided incorrect information in his visa application regarding his specified work experience. Specifically, the applicant stated he had worked for Adenco for three months in a specified role in regional Australia and was remunerated at an hourly rate of $28 AUD. The Tribunal was satisfied that the delegate had issued a valid notice under section 107 and that the applicant's visa was granted based on these incorrect answers, which were a crucial criterion for the visa. While the applicant provided reasons for the non-compliance, including the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic and difficulties in finding work, the Tribunal weighed these circumstances against the fact that the visa was obtained through false information.

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