HOU (Migration)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal affirmed the decision to cancel the Subclass 189 (Skilled Independent) visa of the first applicant. The dispute concerned the validity of the applicant's visa application, specifically allegations of providing incorrect information and submitting a bogus document, which led to the cancellation notice. The Tribunal found it had no jurisdiction concerning the second applicant.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicant had failed to satisfy the criteria for the visa, particularly in relation to providing a genuine language proficiency test. This involved determining if the applicant had provided a bogus document and whether the applicant had taken positive steps to obtain such a document, thereby engaging the application of Public Interest Criterion 4020. The Tribunal also considered whether to exercise its discretion to waive the consequences of non-compliance.

The Tribunal reasoned that the applicant had not demonstrated proficient English, a requirement for the visa. Crucially, it found that the applicant had taken positive steps to obtain a bogus document, as the language proficiency test had been undertaken by an imposter. This finding engaged the mandatory application of PIC 4020, which generally mandates cancellation in such circumstances. The Tribunal concluded that, having regard to all the relevant circumstances, the visa should be cancelled and affirmed the delegate's decision.