He (Migration)

This matter concerned an appeal to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (the Tribunal) regarding the cancellation of the applicant's subclass 155 (Five Year Resident Return) visa. The dispute arose from the provision of allegedly bogus documents as evidence of the applicant's cohabitation with Mr Pengming Zhao, which was a requirement for her previous Skilled – Independent (Subclass 189) visa application. The Tribunal was tasked with determining whether the visa cancellation was justified.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicant had failed to comply with the provisions of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth) (the Act), specifically sections 101 and 103, by providing bogus documents. This involved assessing whether the documents submitted as evidence of the applicant and Mr Zhao's de facto relationship were intentionally altered or fraudulent, and consequently, whether the visa cancellation power under section 109 of the Act was validly engaged.

The Tribunal found that the delegate had properly engaged section 107 of the Act and that the notice issued to the applicant complied with statutory requirements. The Tribunal was satisfied that the documents provided, including numerous Vodafone phone bills purportedly sent to both the applicant and Mr Zhao at the same Sydney address, had been intentionally altered. This led to the conclusion that the applicant had not resided with Mr Zhao in a genuine and committed de facto relationship, and therefore, had provided bogus documents in support of her visa application. Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the decision to cancel the applicant's visa.