Hickey (Migration)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (Cth) considered the cancellation of a Working Holiday (Temporary) (Class TZ) visa, subclass 417, held by the applicant. The dispute arose from the applicant's second extension application for this visa, where she provided answers that were later found to be incorrect. Specifically, the applicant claimed to have completed six months of specified work in a regional area, but verification checks indicated this work was never performed. The applicant did not respond to the Department, the Tribunal, or appear at the hearing.

The Tribunal was required to determine whether the applicant had failed to comply with the requirements of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth) by providing incorrect information in her visa application. The central legal issue was whether the applicant's answers regarding her specified work constituted non-compliance under section 101(b) of the Act, and if so, whether the Minister's discretion to cancel the visa under section 109 of the Act was validly exercised. The Tribunal also had to consider whether the notice issued under section 107 of the Act complied with statutory requirements.

The Tribunal reasoned that section 101(b) of the Act requires visa applicants to provide no incorrect answers. It found that the applicant's assertion of having completed six months of specified work, when verification checks indicated otherwise, constituted an incorrect answer. The Tribunal was satisfied that the notice issued under section 107 of the Act was valid and provided the applicant with particulars of the alleged non-compliance. Applying section 109 of the Act, the Tribunal concluded that the non-compliance identified in the section 107 notice had been established.

The Tribunal affirmed the decision to cancel the applicant's subclass 417 visa.