Dignam (Migration)

The case concerned an applicant for a Subclass 417 (Working Holiday) visa whose visa was cancelled by the Department. The applicant sought review of this decision before the Tribunal. The dispute centred on allegations that the applicant had provided incorrect information in his visa application, specifically concerning specified work undertaken in regional Australia.

The Tribunal was required to determine whether the applicant had failed to comply with the requirements of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) by providing incorrect information in his visa application. This involved considering the applicant's responsibility for the information provided, even if supplied by a third party engaged to prepare the application, and whether the notice of intention to cancel the visa and the subsequent decision to cancel were validly made under the Act.

The Tribunal found that the applicant had indeed provided incorrect information in his visa application, acknowledging that he knew "something was wrong" with the approach taken to its preparation and that he was aware of the regional work requirement for the visa. Applying section 98 of the Act, which states that a non-citizen is taken to have filled in their application form if it is filled in on their behalf, the Tribunal held the applicant responsible for the incorrect information. Furthermore, section 100 clarifies that an answer is incorrect even if the person did not know it was incorrect. Having determined there was non-compliance under section 108, and having considered the applicant's response and all relevant circumstances, the Tribunal affirmed the decision to cancel the visa under section 109.