Illidge (Migration)

This matter concerned an appeal by the applicant against the decision of the Minister to cancel their Subclass 417 (Working Holiday) visa. The cancellation was based on allegations of non-compliance with visa conditions, specifically providing incorrect information in an application for a second extension of the visa. The applicant conceded that they had provided incorrect information regarding specified work undertaken in a regional area, attributing this error to pressure during the COVID-19 pandemic and reliance on a migration agent. The Tribunal was required to determine whether the applicant had indeed failed to comply with the relevant provisions of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth) and, if so, whether the visa cancellation decision should be affirmed.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicant had provided incorrect answers in their visa application, thereby contravening section 101(b) of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth). This section mandates that visa applicants must not provide incorrect answers in their application forms. The Tribunal also considered whether the notice issued by the Minister under section 107 of the Act, detailing the alleged non-compliance, was valid and whether the subsequent cancellation of the visa under section 109 was justified. The Tribunal had to assess the applicant's explanation for the incorrect information and determine if it warranted setting aside the cancellation.

The Tribunal found that the applicant had indeed provided incorrect information in their visa application, specifically in response to questions about having completed at least six months of specified work in a regional area while holding a previous visa. The Tribunal was satisfied that the notice issued under section 107 complied with statutory requirements and that the delegate had reached the necessary state of mind to engage the cancellation power. Despite the applicant's explanation regarding pressure and reliance on a migration agent, the Tribunal concluded that the non-compliance was established. Applying the principles that an incorrect answer is still incorrect even if not knowingly provided, and considering the evidence before it, the Tribunal affirmed the decision to cancel the applicant's visa.