Du (Migration)

This matter concerned the review of a decision to cancel the Subclass 500 (Student) visa of the first applicant. The dispute arose from allegations that the applicant had provided incorrect information in a previous visa application, specifically regarding specified work undertaken in regional Australia. The second applicant's status was also before the court, though the court ultimately found it had no jurisdiction in relation to that applicant.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the first applicant had failed to comply with section 101(b) of the Migration Act 1958, which requires that no incorrect answers be given in a visa application. A further issue was whether, if non-compliance was established, the visa should be cancelled. The Tribunal also considered whether the notice issued under section 107 of the Act complied with statutory requirements.

The Tribunal found that the first applicant had breached section 101(b) of the Act by stating she had undertaken specified work in regional Australia when applying for a Working Holiday (Extension) visa, when in fact she had not been employed by the business listed. The Tribunal was satisfied that the delegate had formed the necessary state of mind to engage section 107 and that the notice issued complied with the Act. Despite the applicant's response to the notice, the Tribunal concluded that, having regard to all relevant circumstances, the visa should be cancelled.

The Tribunal affirmed the decision to cancel the first applicant's Subclass 500 (Student) visa. The Tribunal determined it had no jurisdiction with respect to the second applicant.