Han (Migration)

This matter concerned an appeal by the applicant against the cancellation of his Subclass 155 (Five Year Resident Return) visa. The cancellation was based on allegations of non-compliance with the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth) in relation to a previous application for a Skilled Nominated (Subclass 190) visa. The applicant had applied for the Subclass 190 visa as a member of the family unit of Ms Yitian Sun, claiming a de facto relationship and providing documents as evidence of cohabitation.

The primary legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the applicant had failed to comply with section 103 of the *Migration Act 1958* by providing bogus documents, and if so, whether the cancellation of his Subclass 155 visa should be affirmed. The Tribunal was required to determine if the notice issued under section 107 of the Act complied with statutory requirements and if the evidence supported the finding of non-compliance as particularised in that notice.

The Tribunal found that the notice issued under section 107 was valid and complied with the statutory requirements. It was satisfied that the applicant had provided bogus documents, specifically Vodafone phone bills and Commonwealth Bank statements, as evidence of his cohabitation with Ms Sun at a particular address between 2015 and 2016. The Tribunal reasoned that the integrity of Australia's migration program relies on the provision of genuine documents, and the use of bogus documents, which contributed to the grant of a permanent residence visa, was a serious matter. While acknowledging factors such as the applicant's length of stay in Australia and employment ties, the Tribunal concluded that these were outweighed by the circumstances favouring cancellation.

The Tribunal affirmed the decision to cancel the applicant's Subclass 155 (Five Year Resident Return) visa.