Fallon (Migration)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal reviewed a decision to cancel the Subclass 417 (Working Holiday) visa of the applicant, an Irish national. The cancellation was based on alleged non-compliance with section 101(b) of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth), which requires visa applicants to provide correct information in their applications. Specifically, the applicant had indicated in his application for a further Subclass 417 visa that he had completed three months of specified work in a regional area, a claim that verification checks suggested was not undertaken.

The Tribunal was required to determine whether the applicant had indeed failed to provide correct information in his visa application, thereby breaching section 101(b) of the Act. If non-compliance was found, the Tribunal then had to consider whether the cancellation of the applicant's visa was the appropriate course of action, having regard to the evidence presented and the discretion afforded under section 109 of the Act.

The Tribunal considered the evidence provided by the applicant, including payslips for work undertaken with Atom Resources, a letter from Luhan Group Pty Ltd regarding sponsorship, and evidence of his relationship with a permanent resident. The Tribunal noted that section 100 of the Act states that an incorrect answer is still considered incorrect even if the applicant was unaware of its inaccuracy. However, the Tribunal also had regard to the applicant's circumstances, including work undertaken during COVID-19 restrictions and his ongoing employment in a sector with a skills shortage, as well as his remorse and character references.

Ultimately, the Tribunal concluded that, having regard to all the relevant circumstances, the visa should not be cancelled. The Tribunal set aside the decision under review and substituted a decision not to cancel the applicant’s Subclass 417 (Working Holiday) visa.