Gao (Migration)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) considered a migration matter concerning the cancellation of a Subclass 155 (Five Year Resident Return) visa held by Mr Gao. The dispute arose from allegations that Mr Gao had provided incorrect answers and a bogus document, specifically an IELTS Test report belonging to another person, in a previous visa application. The Minister had initiated cancellation proceedings based on this alleged non-compliance.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether Mr Gao had engaged in non-compliance with the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth) and its associated regulations, and if so, whether the Minister was mandated to cancel his visa. The Tribunal was required to assess the evidence presented regarding the alleged incorrect information and the use of a document not belonging to Mr Gao, and to consider any prescribed circumstances relevant to the cancellation decision.

In its reasoning, the Tribunal noted that the Minister's power to cancel a visa under section 116(1) of the *Migration Act* is engaged if the Minister decides there has been non-compliance and considers any response provided by the visa holder. The Tribunal also had regard to the provisions of section 116(2), which mandates cancellation if prescribed circumstances exist. While the provided text does not detail the Tribunal's specific findings on the evidence or the application of prescribed circumstances, it indicates that the Tribunal ultimately set aside the decision under review. This suggests that the Tribunal found either that there was no non-compliance, or that the circumstances did not warrant mandatory cancellation, or that the Minister's decision was otherwise flawed. The Tribunal's decision implies that factors such as the establishment of multiple businesses providing employment, the best interests of a child, and potential financial hardship may have been considered in the overall assessment, although their precise impact on the outcome is not elaborated in the provided excerpt.