Guillo (Migration)

This matter concerned the review of a decision to cancel the applicant's Subclass 417 (Working Holiday) visa. The applicant, a French citizen, had previously held a Subclass 417 visa and an eVisitor visa before being granted a further Subclass 417 visa on 23 January 2018. In his application for this visa, the applicant indicated that he had undertaken the required three months of specified work in regional Australia. The Tribunal, constituted by Member Moira Brophy, was tasked with determining whether the cancellation decision should be affirmed.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the 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. This alleged non-compliance stemmed from the applicant's assertion in his visa application that he had completed three months of specified work in regional Australia, when in fact he had not. The Tribunal also considered whether the notice issued under section 107 of the Act, detailing the alleged non-compliance, was valid and whether the cancellation power under section 109 of the Act was correctly engaged.

The Tribunal reasoned that section 99 of the Act treats any information provided in a visa application as an answer to a question, and section 100 clarifies that an answer is considered incorrect even if the applicant was unaware of its inaccuracy. The applicant had provided specific details of employment, including an ABN, postcode, and dates, in response to the question about regional work. The Tribunal found that the notice issued under section 107 complied with statutory requirements and that the applicant had indeed provided an incorrect answer to a material question in his visa application, thereby breaching section 101(b).

Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the decision to cancel the applicant's Subclass 417 (Working Holiday) visa.