Hoyland (Migration)

This matter concerned an appeal by the applicant against the decision to cancel their Working Holiday (Temporary) (Class TZ) visa, Subclass 417. The cancellation was based on allegations that the applicant provided incorrect information in their second extension application, specifically regarding the completion of six months of specified work in a regional area. Verification checks indicated that the applicant had not performed the claimed work.

The Administrative Appeals 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 their visa application. The Tribunal also had to consider whether, in light of the non-compliance and any mitigating factors presented by the applicant, the decision to cancel the visa should be affirmed.

The Tribunal found that the notice issued under section 107 of the Act complied with statutory requirements and that the applicant had indeed provided incorrect answers regarding their specified work experience. The Tribunal noted that section 100 of the Act states that an answer is incorrect even if the person did not know it was incorrect. While acknowledging the applicant's admissions, remorse, and personal circumstances including anxiety and the impact of COVID-19 restrictions, the Tribunal concluded that the non-compliance was established. The Tribunal affirmed the decision to cancel the applicant's visa.