Hickey (Migration)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal considered the case of Hickey, who sought review of the Minister's decision to cancel her Working Holiday (Temporary) (Class TZ) visa, Subclass 417. The dispute arose from incorrect information provided by Ms. Hickey in her application for a third Working Holiday visa, specifically regarding the completion of six months of specified work in a regional area while holding her second extension visa. Verification checks by the Department revealed that the employer cited by Ms. Hickey stated she had never worked for them.

The Tribunal was required to determine whether Ms. Hickey had failed to comply with the requirements of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth) by providing incorrect information in her visa application, and if so, whether the decision to cancel her visa should be affirmed. This involved assessing the validity of the Notice of Intention to Consider Cancellation (NOICC) issued to Ms. Hickey, which detailed the alleged non-compliance concerning her employment claims. The Tribunal also had to consider the discretionary aspects of visa cancellation, including any mitigating factors or consequences of cancellation.

The Tribunal found that Ms. Hickey had indeed provided incorrect answers in her visa application, contravening section 101(b) of the Act, as confirmed by the employer's verification. The Tribunal acknowledged that while the consequences of cancellation, such as potential limitations on future visa applications and the possibility of becoming an unlawful non-citizen, weighed in favour of setting aside the decision, these were the intended legal outcomes of breaching the Act. The Tribunal noted that Ms. Hickey had benefited from the incorrect information, likely securing the visa she might not otherwise have obtained.

Ultimately, the Tribunal affirmed the decision to cancel Ms. Hickey's Subclass 417 visa, concluding that there was non-compliance with the Act and that, having regard to all relevant circumstances, the cancellation was warranted.