Hoyland (Migration)

Hoyland (Migration) [2021] AATA 4540 (19 November 2021)
DECISION RECORD
DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division
APPLICANT:  Miss Olivia Fay Cluley Hoyland
CASE NUMBER:  2109739
HOME AFFAIRS REFERENCE(S):          BCC2020/2361600
MEMBER:Alan McMurran
DATE:19 November 2021
PLACE OF DECISION:  Sydney
DECISION:The Tribunal affirms the decision to cancel the applicant’s Subclass 417 (Working Holiday) visa.
Statement made on 19 November 2021 at 3:59pm

CATCHWORDS
MIGRATION – cancellation – Working Holiday (Temporary) (Class TZ) visa – Subclass 417 (Working Holiday) visa – incorrect information in second extension application – specified work in regional area for 6 months while holding first extension – verification checks showed applicant never did claimed work – discretion to cancel visa – full admissions and remorse – COVID-19 restrictions and anxiety – paid unknown person to complete and submit application – applicant’s and partner’s work history – plans to return to home country to complete qualifications then apply for further visas – potential effect of cancellation on future applications – decision under review affirmed
LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss 101(b), 107, 109(1), (2)
Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth), r 2.41
CASE
MIAC v Khadgi (2010) 190 FCR 248
STATEMENT OF DECISION AND REASONS
APPLICATION FOR REVIEW

This is an application lodged 31 July 2021 for review of a decision made by a delegate of the Minister for Home Affairs on 27 July 2021 to cancel the applicant’s Subclass 417 (Working Holiday) visa under s.109(1) of the Migration Act 1958 (the Act).
The delegate cancelled the visa on the basis that the applicant did not comply with s.101(b) of the Act, by providing incorrect information in relation to a Subclass 417 Working Holiday (extension) visa . The issue in the present case is whether that ground for cancellation is made out, and if so, whether the visa should be cancelled.
The applicant appeared before the Tribunal on 19 November 2021 to give evidence and present arguments. The applicant was unrepresented.
For the following reasons, the Tribunal has concluded that the decision to cancel the applicant’s visa should be affirmed.
CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE
Section 109(1) of the Act allows the Minister to cancel a visa if the visa holder has failed to comply with ss.101, 102, 103, 104, 105 or 107(2) of the Act. Broadly speaking, these sections require non-citizens to provide correct information in their visa applications and passenger cards, not to provide bogus documents and to notify the Department of any incorrect information of which they become aware and of any relevant changes in circumstances.
The exercise of the cancellation power under s.109 of the Act is conditional on the Minister issuing a valid notice to the visa holder under s.107 of the Act (“the notice”), providing particulars of the alleged non-compliance. Where a notice is issued that does not comply with the requirements in s.107, the power to cancel the visa does not arise. Extracts of the Act relevant to this case are attached to this decision.
In the present matter, the Tribunal is satisfied that the delegate had reached the necessary state of mind to engage s.107 and that the notice issued under s.107 complied with the statutory requirements.
Was there non-compliance as described in the s.107 notice?
The issue before the Tribunal is whether there was non-compliance in the way described in the s.107 notice, being the manner particularised in the notice, and if so, whether the visa should be cancelled. The non-compliance identified and particularised in the notice was non-compliance with s.101(b) of the Act, in the following respects:
(i)On 24 August 2018 the applicant applied for a third Working Holiday (Extension) (subclass 417) visa via the Department’s online facility.
(ii)In response to the question ‘They have carried out at least six months of specified work’ you answered ‘Yes’.
(iii)In response to the question ‘All of that work was carried out while the applicant held the second Working Holiday visa (subclass 417); OR while the applicant held a bridging visa that was in effect and was granted on the basis of the application for a second Working Holiday visa (subclass 417) which was made at a time when the applicant held the first Working Holiday visa (subclass 417)’ you answered ‘Yes’.
(iv)Under the heading ‘Details of specified work undertaken’, you provided the following answers (in part): Employer Details Legal registered name: Core Traffic Control Pty Ltd Trading name: Core Traffic Control Pty Ltd Australian Business Number (ABN): 84155689508 Employer business address
Address: 2 Aristos Place
Suburb / Town: Winnellie
State / Territory Northern Territory
Postcode: 0820
Work conditions
Employment type: Direct employment
Industry type: Construction
Industry type sub-group: Construction
Description of duties Providing traffic management for
construction sites and work zones.
Date from: 19 Mar 2020
Date to: 24 Aug 2020
Total days worked: 180
The notice further states:
“{Under the heading ‘Working holiday declarations’, in response to the question ‘Have carried out at least six months of specified work; AND all of that work was carried out while the applicant held the second Working Holiday visa (subclass 417); OR while the applicant held a bridging visa that was in effect and was granted on the basis of the application for a second Working Holiday visa (subclass 417) which was made at a time when the applicant held the first Working Holiday visa; AND all of that work was carried out after 1 July 2019’, you answered ‘Yes’.”
The notice states that based on the information (as set out in the notice), as well as meeting other relevant criteria, the applicant was granted the Working Holiday (Extension) visa on 24 August 2020.
Based on the information provided in the visa application, the delegate considering the application, assessed the applicant to have met the relevant criteria, including the requirement that while holding her second Subclass 417 visa, the applicant had worked the equivalent of at least 6 months’ full-time work in a specified occupation in regional Australia.
The available Department information indicates that following an employment check by the Department, Core Traffic Control Pty Ltd, the stated employer, informed the Department that the applicant had never worked for the company.
This information was particularised in the s.107 notice provided to the applicant by email on 7 July 2021.
The applicant was invited to respond within 14 days of receiving the notice, which the applicant did on 20 July 2021. The applicant’s response was brief and stated:
Dear Sir/Madam,
I am writing to you in response to the email I’ve received about my 3rd year working
holiday visa. First of all I would like to be totally honest and admit I did not complete the
required farm work for this visa. It is something that I strongly regret and I am deeply sorry
but felt I had no other choice at the time. I will explain to you how I got to where I am and
what made me make this decision, and I hope you will have an understanding as to why.
Growing up I went through some childhood traumas that I never fully got over and I was
very disappointed with my life, and my anxiety was at its peak. I felt I hadn’t accomplished
anything, I didn’t know what I wanted to do with my life and I always let myself down. So I
decided to make some life changes, I told myself it wasn’t me that was bringing me down it
was my surroundings. I saved up to travel around Asia and then move on to Australia and
start a new life.
Travelling around Asia, was very eye opening. It made me feel grateful for my life and
lucky to have all the privileges that I’ve had. I volunteered in an elephant sanctuary which
felt so rewarding that my money and time was going to a cause that needed more than I
did. The first place I landed was Cairns on 3/10/18 and I met the most down to earth
people, who will be my friends for life. They helped me through my anxiety and made me
realise who I was as a person. In December 2018 I moved to Melbourne.
In May 2019 I uprooted to do my farm work for 2nd year visa in Mildura on an almond
farm, please find attached my hostel payment and payslip as proof. The farm work was
some of the hardest work for me, going through blood sweat and tears, but I knew It had to
be done to gain my 2nd year. During farm work I had some bad news from home that my
uncle had passed away, and my mums best friend who was like an auntie to me had also
passed. This really messed me up and I made the decision to fly home - knowing this
would mean I wouldn’t be able to finish farm work and gain my 2nd year. After a talk with
some close friends I met here, and my mum who advised me to stay to complete the farm
work as she knew how much this meant to me, I decided to stay and gain my 2nd year. I
completed my farm work in September 2019.
After the traumatic news from home knowing I wasn’t there to say my last good byes to
close family, and the work put In on the farm I moved back to Melbourne and began to
carry on with my life, contemplating on going home.
During my 2nd year was when covid affect the world. I moved to Sydney March 2020
around the time the country went into lock down, luckily enough I had friends to put me up
on a sofa until I got a job. I started working at Westpac in April 2020, this helped me save
up and I was able to get my own room, still thinking of going home.
With all that was going on in the world, Australia had been handling it very well compared
to other countries, unlike the UK. This then kickstarted my anxiety off with the thought of
being back in England where people are struggling to work, unable to have a social life
and the number of suicides. I didn’t want to be back in that situation which led me to make
the regrettable decision.
I finished at Westpac September 2020, I then started work at Schindler Lifts Australia in
October 2020, this was a fantastic opportunity working for a worldwide company, I finished
here in April 2021. I am now working in the Human Resources department of a NDIS provider (National Disability Insurance Scheme). Giving the short time I’ve worked for this company, I believe in what they’re are trying to achieve by helping people with needs. I am
passionate about working for this company and this what I would like to do as career. I
work with a brilliant team who I will be forever friends with, the company have also said
they are willing to buy me out from the agency and want take me on full time.
My boyfriend is an Electrician on a subclass 482 visa(I have attached his visa grant to this
letter) and our next plan is for me to go onto his visa. His company are going to nominate
him for Permanent Residency in December this year. Our goal is to get our residency then
continue to travel and make a life in this beautiful country. I have finally found a job I love
and I am going to study to attain entry level qualifications to enable me to pursue a career
in Human Resources.
Again I am truly sorry for making what I realise now possibly the worst decision of my life,
and would ask you from the bottom of my heart to please not cancel my visa. My boyfriend
and I have had the same life goals and I would do anything to stop this affecting our future.
At the hearing, the applicant admitted the non-compliance as set out in the notice and her response and made the following submissions:
(i)The applicant said she had made no enquiries of any migration agent or sought advice. She said she had herself completed two previous applications online and was familiar with the process and the questions asked by Immigration, and in utilising her immi account;
(ii)that she was aware that she had not completed the specified work in regional Australia for six months, but wanted to remain in Australia;
(iii)that in or about August 2020, a fellow backpacker had provided her with information on a contact who could obtain a third year extension visa for a fee; she was given an email address;
(iv)she made contact via the email address and provided personal details including her IMMI account, a copy of her passport, and personal bank details; she had no other information about the person acting on her behalf;
(v)she did not complete an application form herself nor submit any form via her IMMI account; this was done by the person using another IMMI account;
(vi)she did not speak with the person acting on her behalf and with her authority and had no contact other than via the email address;
(vii) she did not see an application form or review the contents, and was not aware the application was lodged on 24 August 2020 and the visa granted for the period from 3 October 2020 to 3 October 2021, until she received the visa from the email address; the applicant paid the application fee of $500 and a sum of $1500, both sums debited from her account by the person operating the email address;
The applicant further submitted:
(i)that in early 2020, she had initially intended to return to the United Kingdom on the expiry of her second visa and before the advent of COVID-19;
(ii)that after returning to Sydney in early March 2020, when the pandemic lockdowns were first imposed, she became concerned about her ability to return to the United Kingdom and obtain employment;
(iii)that she had found temporary employment in Sydney shortly after the lockdown working for Westpac in its cards Department, at Parramatta, from April 2020 until October 2020; in August 2020, the applicant sought to renew her Working Holiday visa (as explained above);
(iv)in December 2020, the applicant went to Byron Bay for a holiday and met her partner with whom she now lives in a de facto relationship in Sydney;
(v)the applicant finished at Westpac and found employment at Schindler in October 2020; the applicant went to Bali for a two week holiday in March 2021, finished her job with Schindler in April, and found work through an agency for an NDIS provider, United for Care;
(vi)she said that she terminated that employment in November 2021, just before the hearing, intending to return to United Kingdom on or about Monday 22 November 2021.
The applicant was candid and forthcoming in respect of her responses, admitting the non-compliance, which she now regrets. The applicant did not dispute the contents of the notice or the facts upon which it relies or any of the particulars of the non-compliance notice relied upon.
The Tribunal finds it is satisfied on this information that the Department issued a valid s.107 notice setting out details of the applicant’s non-compliance, and that there was non-compliance in the way described in the notice.
Should the visa be cancelled?
As the Tribunal has decided that there was non-compliance in the way described in the notice given to the applicant under s.107 of the Act, it is necessary to consider whether the visa should be cancelled pursuant to s.109(1). Cancellation in this context is discretionary, as there are no mandatory cancellation circumstances prescribed under s.109(2).
In exercising this power, the Tribunal must consider the applicant’s response (if any) to the s.107 notice about the non-compliance and have regard to any prescribed circumstances: s.109(1)(b) and (c). The prescribed circumstances are set out in r.2.41 of the Regulations. Briefly, they are:
·     the correct information
·     the content of the genuine document (if any)
·     whether the decision to grant a visa or immigration clear the visa holder was based, wholly or partly, on incorrect information or a bogus document
·     the circumstances in which the non-compliance occurred
·     the present circumstances of the visa holder
·     the subsequent behaviour of the visa holder concerning his or her obligations under Subdivision C of Division 3 of Part 2 of the Act
·     any other instances of non-compliance by the visa holder known to the Minister
·     the time that has elapsed since the non-compliance
·     any breaches of the law since the non-compliance and the seriousness of those breaches
·     any contribution made by the holder to the community.
While these factors must be considered, they do not represent an exhaustive statement of the circumstances that might properly be considered to be relevant in any given case: MIAC v Khadgi (2010) 190 FCR 248. The Tribunal may also have regard to lawful government policy. The relevant policy is set out in the Department’s Procedural Advice Manual) PAM3 ‘General visa cancellation powers’, which refers to matters such as the consequences of cancelling the visa, international obligations and any other relevant matters.
The Tribunal discussed her response to the Department and each of these matters with the applicant at the hearing, who was unassisted, and who confirmed she understood the process and the importance of answering truthfully. The applicant said her response to the Department was entirely truthful and ‘upfront’.
The Tribunal found the applicant to be credible, candid, and forthcoming as well as sincerely regretful of her conduct in dealing with the Department through an unidentified third person, and in respect of whom she had no contact other than by email. The Tribunal invited the applicant to make any additional submissions or comments concerning any other matter that had not already been raised either by the Department in the notice or in discussion at the hearing. The applicant indicated her primary concern was about being able to return to Australia in due course, with her partner. The Tribunal then found it convenient in this instance to go through each of the prescribed circumstances with the applicant and as set out below.
Regulation 2.41 sets out 10 criteria as the ‘prescribed circumstances’ under section 109 (1)(c) of the Act. The Tribunal has dealt with each of those prescribed circumstances in turn, as well as any additional circumstances considered appropriate. There is no mandated process for consideration of the prescribed circumstances by the Tribunal [1], and which consideration may differ from case to case. The Tribunal has found convenient in this instance to specify each of the criteria, as discussed with the applicant, as follows.
[1] Minister for Immigration and Citizenship v Khadgi [2010] FCAFC 145
2.41 (a)
The Tribunal put to the applicant that the correct information is that the applicant had not worked for the required six months in regional Australia, as claimed in her application. The applicant agreed.
2.41 (b)
This is not a case involving the content of a genuine document (if any) and consideration of this circumstance does not apply.
2.41 (c)
The Tribunal finds it is satisfied that the decision to grant the third Working Holiday (Extension) Subclass 417 visa was based, wholly or partly, on incorrect information, conceded by the applicant and as set out above. The applicant also agreed with that proposition as the basis upon which the visa was approved by the Department.
2.41 (d)
The Tribunal explored the circumstances of the non-compliance at hearing with the applicant, who gave her answers honestly and truthfully concerning those circumstances, that the applicant had relied upon information about a third party in respect of whom she was entirely ignorant, but whom she permitted and authorised to make an application for the visa on her behalf and for the payment of a fee. The applicant believed the process was used by others who in like circumstances, were extremely concerned by the pandemic and the prospect of having to return to the United Kingdom. The applicant said that but for the pandemic, she would have returned to the United Kingdom on the expiry of her second visa.
2.41 (e)
The Tribunal accepts that the applicant had fully complied with the application requirements of the first and second applications and wherein the information they contained was true and correct. The Tribunal accepts that but for the incorrect answers in the third application as to the specified work performed, the applicant has not provided any other incorrect answers or misinformation.

The Tribunal accepts that the applicant is currently in a de facto relationship with her partner since about March 2021, who holds a current TSS subclass 482 visa, and who has employment in Sydney as an electrician. The Tribunal accepts that the applicant and her partner intend to return to the UK as early as next week, so that the applicant’s partner can complete his qualifications as an electrician. The applicant intends that the de facto relationship will continue in the United Kingdom and that in approximately two years’ time, the applicant and her partner will seek further entry to Australia with the ultimate goal of permanent residency.
The applicant is aware of the potential imposition of a bar against further applications and the fact a cancellation decision in respect of her third Working Holiday visa may work against further applications. She is concerned and anxious about the prospect of being able to return to Australia, which is why she has presented her evidence and made her submissions at hearing, in anticipation that her honesty and candour in that regard may work in her favour in relation to any further application considerations, and while making a sincere apology for her actions and involvement in the process by the third-party.
The Tribunal accepts the applicant is genuine and sincere in her regret over the provision of the information in answer to questions in the application on her behalf, as set out above and in the notice, and which was incorrect.
2.41 (f)
The applicant has engaged with the Tribunal and the Department and provided a response to the notice and attended the hearing. The applicant has candidly admitted the incorrect information provided and has been consistent as to the circumstances arising and how it occurred and has presented her submissions and evidence candidly and without equivocation.
2.41 (g)
There is no information before the Tribunal of any other concerns arising as to the behaviour of the applicant since the lodgment of the application with the incorrect information in August 2020. The Tribunal has no information of any other non-compliance by the applicant.
2.41 (h)
The applicant was granted the third Working Holiday ( Extension) visa on 24 August 2020 and 15 months has elapsed since the non-compliance by the applicant. The Tribunal considers the lapse of time as relatively recent and given that the applicant has been on notice since the NOICC on 7 July 2021, and later on 27 July 2021, when the visa was formally cancelled.
2.41 (j)
The Tribunal is not aware of any breaches of the law by the applicant since non-compliance and has no information before it in that regard.
2.41 (k)
There is no information before the Tribunal that the applicant has made any contribution to the Australian community, however the Tribunal accepts that the applicant is a law-abiding resident.
Other relevant factors
The prescribed circumstances as listed under Reg 2.41 are considered above. However, case law provides that this is not an exhaustive statement of the circumstances that might properly be considered to be relevant in any given case. The Department’s procedural guide also requires delegates to take into account other factors, such as Australia’s international obligations or whether an automatic cancellation may have occurred under s.140 of the Act. The Tribunal has considered the following factors in addition to those as required under Reg 2.41.
Australia’s International Obligations
The applicant has not raised any concerns that cancellation of her visa would engage any of Australia’s international obligations.
Effect of the cancellation
The Tribunal acknowledges that if the applicant's visa was cancelled, she would be prevented from being granted a range of temporary visas, for a period of 3 years from the date of cancellation in July 2021. It also notes that cancellation would mean that the applicant would be prevented from applying for visas onshore pursuant to s.48 of the Act, except for a limited range of visas including Partner visas. The Tribunal gives these consequences some weight in favour of not cancelling the visa.
Cancellation of the applicant’s visa would also not cause hardship and interruption to the applicant and her partner, given the applicant’s stated intention to return to the UK to enable her partner to complete his training as an electrician. Cancellation will have no immediate effect on the applicant’s personal circumstances as she plans to return to the UK. The applicant’s principal concern is her ability to be able to return to Australia in the foreseeable future. The Tribunal gives these consequences little weight in favor of not cancelling the visa.
The Tribunal further notes that if her visa were cancelled, the applicant would lawfully remain on her current bridging visa until it ceases and prior to her stated intended imminent departure. If she remained in Australia after this date, she would become an unlawful non-citizen and would be subject to detention. There is nothing to suggest that any detention in such a hypothetical situation would be indefinite, or indeed will arise on the current information.
Conclusion
The Tribunal finds the applicant provided incorrect information in her 417 Working Holiday visa extension and therefore failed to comply with s.101(b).
The Tribunal has found that the incorrect information was provided to the Department due to the authority of the applicant, provided naively and somewhat impulsively to an unknown third party, due to the applicant’s fear arising from the advent of the COVID-19 pandemic, its then unknown duration and what effect it would have on the applicant’s return to the UK both for her personal safety and for her future employment.
The Tribunal has noted that the applicant is genuinely remorseful, has apologised, and regrets her actions, and accepts that is the case.
That said, in weighing up all the circumstances cumulatively and separately, the Tribunal finds that after considering all the circumstances, including the prescribed factors pursuant to r.2.41 of the Regulations, and other considerations discussed above, including the effect of the cancellation, the Tribunal finds that factors in favour of not cancelling the visa are outweighed by the factors in favour of cancelling the visa.
The Tribunal has decided that there was non-compliance by the applicant in the way described in the notice given under s.107 of the Act. Further, having regard to all the relevant circumstances, as discussed above, the Tribunal concludes that the visa should be cancelled.
DECISION
The Tribunal affirms the decision to cancel the applicant’s Subclass 417 (Working Holiday) visa.
Alan McMurran
Member

ATTACHMENT – Migration Act 1958 (extracts)
5Interpretation
(1)In this Act, unless the contrary intention appears:
bogus document, in relation to a person, means a document that the Minister reasonably suspects is a document that:
(a)     purports to have been, but was not, issued in respect of the person; or
(b)     is counterfeit or has been altered by a person who does not have authority to do so; or
(c)      was obtained because of a false or misleading statement, whether or not made knowingly.
97Interpretation
In this Subdivision:
application form, in relation to a non‑citizen, means a form on which a non‑citizen applies for a visa, being a form that regulations made for the purposes of section 46 allow to be used for making the application.
passenger card has the meaning given by subsection 506(2) and, for the purposes of section 115, includes any document provided for by regulations under paragraph 504(1)(c).
Note:Bogus document is defined in subsection 5(1).
98Completion of visa application
A non‑citizen who does not fill in his or her application form or passenger card is taken to do so if he or she causes it to be filled in or if it is otherwise filled in on his or her behalf.
99Information is answer
Any information that a non‑citizen gives or provides, causes to be given or provided, or that is given or provided on his or her behalf, to the Minister, an officer, an authorised system, a person or the Tribunal, or the Immigration Assessment authority, reviewing a decision under this Act in relation to the non‑citizen’s application for a visa is taken for the purposes of section 100, paragraphs 101(b) and 102(b) and sections 104 and 105 to be an answer to a question in the non‑citizen’s application form, whether the information is given or provided orally or in writing and whether at an interview or otherwise.
100Incorrect answers
For the purposes of this Subdivision, an answer to a question is incorrect even though the person who gave or provided the answer, or caused the answer to be given or provided, did not know that it was incorrect.
101Visa applications to be correct
A non‑citizen must fill in or complete his or her application form in such a way that:
(a)all questions on it are answered; and
(b)no incorrect answers are given or provided.
107Notice of incorrect applications
(1)If the Minister considers that the holder of a visa who has been immigration cleared (whether or not because of that visa) did not comply with section 101, 102, 103, 104 or 105 or with subsection (2) in a response to a notice under this section, the Minister may give the holder a notice:
(a)     giving particulars of the possible non‑compliance; and
(b)     stating that, within a period stated in the notice as mentioned in subsection (1A), the holder may give the Minister a written response to the notice that:
(i)if the holder disputes that there was non‑compliance:
(A)shows that there was compliance; and
(B)in case the Minister decides under section 108 that, in spite of the statement under sub‑subparagraph (A), there was non‑compliance—shows cause why the visa should not be cancelled; or
(ii)if the holder accepts that there was non‑compliance:
(A)give reasons for the non‑compliance; and
(B)shows cause why the visa should not be cancelled; and
(c)      stating that the Minister will consider cancelling the visa:
(i)if the holder gives the Minister oral or written notice, within the period stated as mentioned in subsection (1A), that he or she will not give a written response—when that notice is given; or
(ii)if the holder gives the Minister a written response within that period—when the response is given; or
(iii)otherwise—at the end of that period; and
(d)     setting out the effect of sections 108, 109, 111 and 112; and
(e)      informing the holder that the holder’s obligations under section 104 or 105 are not affected by the notice under this section; and
(f)      requiring the holder:
(i)to tell the Minister the address at which the holder is living; and
(ii)if the holder changes that address before the Minister notifies the holder of the Minister’s decision on whether there was non‑compliance by the holder—to tell the Minister the changed address.
(1A)The period to be stated in the notice under subsection (1) must be:
(a)     in respect of the holder of a temporary visa—the period prescribed by the regulations or, if no period is prescribed, a reasonable period; or
(b)     otherwise—14 days.
(1B)Regulations prescribing a period for the purposes of paragraph (1A)(a) may prescribe different periods and state when a particular period is to apply, which, without limiting the generality of the power, may be to:
(a)     visas of a stated class; or
(b)     visa holders in stated circumstances; or
(c)      visa holders in a stated class of people (who may be visa holders in a particular place); or
(d)     visa holders in a stated class of people (who may be visa holders in a particular place) in stated circumstances.
(2)If the visa holder responds to the notice, he or she must do so without making any incorrect statement.
108Decision about non‑compliance
The Minister is to:
(a)consider any response given by a visa holder in the way required by paragraph 107(1)(b); and
(b)decide whether there was non‑compliance by the visa holder in the way described in the notice.
109Cancellation of visa if information incorrect
(1)The Minister, after:
(a)     deciding under section 108 that there was non‑compliance by the holder of a visa; and
(b)     considering any response to the notice about the non‑compliance given in a way required by paragraph 107(1)(b); and
(c)      having regard to any prescribed circumstances;
may cancel the visa.
(2)If the Minister may cancel a visa under subsection (1), the Minister must do so if there exist circumstances declared by the regulations to be circumstances in which a visa must be cancelled.

[2021] AATA 4540

19 November 2021

Key Legal Topics

Areas of Law

Immigration

Statutory Interpretation

Legal Concepts

Judicial Review

Procedural Fairness

Jurisdiction

Statutory Construction