Hoi (Migration)

This matter concerned the review of a decision to cancel the Subclass 572 Vocational Education and Training Sector visa held by the first named applicant, Mr Hoi. The Tribunal, presided over by Senior Member P. Wood, was tasked with determining whether the cancellation decision should be affirmed. The Tribunal noted it had no jurisdiction concerning the other applicant.

The primary legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the first applicant had failed to comply with the requirements of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth) as particularised in the notice issued under section 107 of the Act, and if so, whether the visa should be cancelled. Specifically, the Tribunal considered whether the applicant had provided incorrect answers in his visa application, contrary to section 101(b), and whether he had provided a bogus document, contrary to section 103 of the Act.

The Tribunal reasoned that the notice issued under section 107 complied with statutory requirements and that the delegate had reached the necessary state of mind to engage this power. It found that the applicant had provided incorrect information in his visa application by stating his name as Shin Yean Hoi and date of birth as 3 June 1979, when his true name was Chun Kean Ooi and his correct date of birth was 23 June 1979. Furthermore, the Tribunal determined that the applicant had provided a fraudulent passport with his application, which constituted a bogus document as defined by section 5 of the Act. Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that there had been non-compliance with sections 101(b) and 103 of the Act.

Having found non-compliance, the Tribunal affirmed the decision to cancel the first named applicant’s visa. The Tribunal stated that it had no jurisdiction with respect to the other applicant.