Doherty (Migration)

This matter concerned an appeal by a visa holder against the cancellation of her Working Holiday (Temporary) (Class TZ) visa, subclass 417. The cancellation was based on allegations that the applicant had provided incorrect information in her second extension application, specifically regarding the completion of six months of specified work in regional Australia. The applicant contended that COVID-19 restrictions had limited her work opportunities, and she also presented factors such as her mental health, family circumstances, and limited support in her home country, contrasting with the presence of her partner, treatment, and support network in Australia.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicant had failed to comply with the requirements of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth) by providing incorrect information in her visa application, and if so, whether the visa should be cancelled. Specifically, the Tribunal had to determine if the applicant's assertion of having completed six months of specified work in regional Australia while holding her second Working Holiday visa was accurate, as required for her third visa application. The Tribunal also considered the discretion to cancel the visa in light of the circumstances presented by the applicant.

The Tribunal applied section 109 of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth), which permits the Minister to cancel a visa if the holder has failed to comply with certain provisions, including providing correct information in visa applications. The Tribunal noted that an answer is considered incorrect even if the applicant was unaware of its inaccuracy. While the delegate had issued a valid notice under section 107 of the Act, the Tribunal ultimately concluded that the decision to cancel the applicant's visa should be set aside. The Tribunal's reasoning, though not fully detailed in the provided text, appears to have involved a consideration of the applicant's circumstances and potentially a finding that cancellation was not warranted in this instance, despite the initial non-compliance.

The final outcome of the Tribunal's review was to set aside the decision to cancel the applicant's Subclass 417 (Working Holiday) visa. However, the applicant was cautioned that any future breaches of Australia's immigration laws, regardless of the reason, could lead to serious consequences.