Fahy (Migration)

This matter concerned an application for review of a decision by a delegate of the Minister for Home Affairs to cancel the applicant's Subclass 417 (Working Holiday) visa. The applicant, an Irish citizen, had been granted several working holiday visas, with the most recent one being cancelled under s 109(1) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) on the basis of non-compliance with s 101(b) of the Act. This non-compliance related to alleged incorrect answers provided in her visa application.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicant had indeed failed to comply with s 101(b) of the Act, which requires that no incorrect answers be given or provided in a visa application. This involved determining whether the information provided by the applicant regarding her work experience in regional Australia, specifically her employment with "Berry Sweet Strawberry Farm," was accurate. A further issue arose concerning the applicant's failure to provide requested information to the Tribunal regarding a company she claimed assisted her with her visa application.

The Tribunal affirmed the delegate's decision to cancel the visa. The delegate had found that the applicant had not complied with s 101(b) of the Act, as the information provided in her visa application concerning her work experience was incorrect. The Tribunal noted that under s 100 of the Act, an answer is considered incorrect even if the applicant was unaware of its inaccuracy. Furthermore, the applicant failed to provide crucial information requested by the Tribunal regarding the company that allegedly assisted her with her visa application, despite being given notice and an opportunity to do so. This failure, coupled with the initial non-compliance with s 101(b), led the Tribunal to uphold the cancellation.