Divilly (Migration)

This matter concerned the review of a decision to cancel the applicant's Subclass 417 (Working Holiday) visa. The applicant, an Irish citizen, had been granted a second Working Holiday visa on 15 July 2020. In her application for this visa, she indicated that she had completed at least three months of specified work in regional Australia, a requirement for certain visa conditions. The Tribunal, presided over by Moira Brophy, was tasked with determining whether this information provided was correct and, if not, whether the visa cancellation was warranted.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicant had contravened section 101(b) of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth) by providing incorrect information in her visa application. Specifically, the Tribunal had to determine if the applicant had failed to answer all questions correctly in her application form, as required by that section. The Tribunal also considered whether the notice issued under section 107 of the Act, which particularised the alleged non-compliance, met the statutory requirements and whether the delegate had reached the necessary state of mind to engage the cancellation power.

The Tribunal reasoned that section 99 of the Act deems any information provided by a non-citizen in relation to a visa application to be an answer to a question in that application. Furthermore, section 100 clarifies that an answer is considered incorrect even if the applicant was unaware of its inaccuracy. The Tribunal found that the notice issued under section 107 complied with the Act and that the applicant had indeed provided incorrect information in her visa application regarding her specified regional work. Having found non-compliance with section 101(b), and having considered all relevant circumstances, the Tribunal concluded that the visa cancellation was appropriate.

Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the decision to cancel the applicant’s Subclass 417 (Working Holiday) visa.