IMRAN (Migration)

This matter concerned an appeal by an applicant against the cancellation of their Subclass 457 (Temporary Work (Skilled)) visa. The cancellation decision by the Department of Immigration was based on the applicant allegedly providing incorrect information and a bogus document concerning their employment history during the visa application process. The Tribunal was required to determine whether the applicant had indeed provided incorrect information or a bogus document, and if so, whether the visa should be cancelled.

The Tribunal considered the applicant's employment history, specifically their claimed period of employment with Gul Ahmed between 1992 and 2000. The Department's cancellation decision was informed by verification checks conducted in Islamabad, which involved speaking with an employee of Gul Ahmed regarding the applicant's employment approximately 22 years prior. The applicant's representative argued that the reliability of this evidence was questionable due to the significant time lapse. The applicant also provided a bank statement confirming salary payments and Pakistani taxation records, alongside a statement from Mr Nasir Sharif of Gul Ahmed, which noted difficulties in verifying employment from 16 years prior. The Tribunal also examined the applicant's tertiary education, noting that while they had enrolled in a Bachelor of Commerce in 1992, they had only completed two subjects in 1993 before discontinuing studies, later completing the degree around 2002-2003.

The Tribunal found that it was not satisfied that the applicant had provided incorrect information or a bogus document. The primary basis for the Department's cancellation was the alleged unreliability of the applicant's employment history, which occurred many years prior. The Tribunal noted that the applicant had provided supporting documentation, including bank statements and taxation records, and that the verification attempts by the Department were made on information that was over 16 years old. Crucially, the Tribunal concluded that it was not satisfied that there had been non-compliance by the applicant as described in the notice given under s.107 of the Migration Act 1958.

Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the decision under review and substituted a decision not to cancel the applicant's Subclass 457 visa. The discretionary power to cancel the visa did not arise as the Tribunal was not satisfied that the grounds for cancellation had been established.