Javid (Migration)

[2018] AATA 5307

Javid (Migration) [2018] AATA 5307 (26 October 2018)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

APPLICANT:  Mr Ahmad Javid

CASE NUMBER:  1805414

DIBP REFERENCE(S):  BCC2017/1772028

MEMBER:Kira Raif

DATE:26 October 2018

PLACE OF DECISION:  Sydney

DECISION:The Tribunal affirms the decision to cancel the applicant’s Subclass 117 (Orphan Relative) visa.

Statement made on 26 October 2018 at 2:31pm

CATCHWORDS

MIGRATION – cancellation – Child (Migrant) (Class AH) visa – Subclass 117 (Orphan Relative) – providing incorrect answers – providing financial support to parents from Australia – using parents’ bank account – alleged car accident fatality – parents’ unknown whereabouts – bogus death certificate – decision under review affirmed

LEGISLATION

Migration Act 1958, ss 5, 48, 100-105, 107, 109, 111, 140, 359AA
Migration Regulations 1994, rr 1.14, 2.41

CASES

BCR16 v MIBP (2017) 248 FCR 456
COT15 v MIBP (No 1) (2015) 236 FCR 148
MIAC v Khadgi (2010) 190 FCR 248

STATEMENT OF DECISION AND REASONS

Application for review

1. This is an application for review of a decision made by a delegate of the Minister for Immigration to cancel the applicant’s Subclass 117 (Orphan Relative) visa under s.109(1) of the Migration Act 1958 (the Act).

2. The applicant is a national of Afghanistan. He was granted the Class AH Orphan Relative visa on 30 January 2013. In October 2017 the applicant was issued with the Notice of Intention to Consider Cancellation (NOICC) because the delegate formed the view that the applicant did not comply with s.101 and s.103 of the Act in relation to his visa. The applicant provided his response to the Notice and his visa was cancelled on 28 February 2018. The applicant seeks review of the delegate’s decision.

3. The applicant appeared before the Tribunal on 24 October 2018 to give evidence and present arguments. The applicant was represented in relation to the review by his registered migration agent. For the following reasons, the Tribunal has concluded that the decision to cancel the applicant’s visa should be affirmed.

   Relevant law

4. 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.

5. 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, 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.

6. 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.

   Did the notice comply with the requirements in s.107? 

7. Section 107 is only engaged if the Minister or delegate considers that the visa holder has not complied with one of the provisions mentioned in s.107(1). It is only then that the Minister or delegate is entitled to give notice to the visa holder under s.107. Therefore, if a notice is to be given under s.107, the Minister or delegate must have reached a state of mind where they consider that the visa holder has not complied with one or more of the relevant provisions.

8. The Tribunal has considered the validity of the NOICC. The Tribunal is satisfied that it contains sufficient particulars to enable the applicant to identify and address the issues and also that the delegate had reached the necessary state of mind to engage s.107. The Tribunal is satisfied that the notice issued under s.107 complied with the statutory requirements.

   Was there non-compliance as described in the s.107 notice?

9. 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 s.107 notice was non-compliance with s.101 and s.103 of the Act.

10. The applicant provided to the Tribunal a copy of the primary decision record which contains the following information.

    a.The applicant made the application for the Class AH Orphan Relative visa on 30 October 2011, claiming to be the orphan relative of his brother Ali Javid. As part of that application, the applicant completed the application form 47CH.

    b.In response to Question 27 on the application form seeking details of family members, the applicant provided the following information:

    Father        Mohammad Essa Javid  missing
    Mother        Zahra Zahedi  deceased
    Brother       Ali Javid  Australia
    Sister         Mahbarab Javid  Pakistan
    Brother       Yahya Javid  Iran

    c.The applicant signed a declaration at Question 56 of Form 47CH stating that the information he had supplied in the application was complete, correct and up to date in every detail. The applicant stated that he had read and understood the information supplied to him in the application.

    d.The applicant also submitted the Sponsorship form 40CH. At Question 12 of that form it was stated that the child’s parents were both dead, of unknown whereabouts or permanently incapacitated. It was stated that the father Mohammed Essa Javid was of unknown whereabouts and the mother Zahra Zahedi was dead. The applicant provided with his application a copy of his mother’s death certificate dated 22 May 2011. It states that the mother had been injured in a car accident and passed away in September 2010.

    e.On 15 January 2012 the Orphan Relative application was refused but on 23 August 2012 the Tribunal (differently constituted) remitted the matter to the Department and the applicant was granted the visa on 30 January 2013.

    f.The primary decision record refers to the information held by the Department, showing that the applicant made several money transfers to Iran, Afghanistan, and Pakistan between February 2015 and December 2016. His brother Yahya made transfers to the same countries between June 2013 and April 2017. Details of the recipient’s name in each of these transfers were Zahere Zahedi or Zahrh Zahdi. The decision indicates that the names of the recipients for the transfers, Zahrh Zahdi / Zahra Zahedi / Zahere Zahedi and Mohammad Eisa Jawed match the names of the visa applicant’s mother and father and there was no evidence that the applicant had any additional family members with similar names.

    g.In his written response to the NOICC the applicant states that he was born in Iran but the family moved to Afghanistan in 2005. In 2007 his father was arrested by the Taliban and his mother fled to Pakistan with the children. In 2009 he and his brother Yahya moved to Iran but they were deported back to Afghanistan. In 2010 their mother went missing. The applicant and his brother Yahya migrated to Iran where they remained illegally until 2013. In September 2010 their brother Ali was contacted by an Imam who advised him that a woman believed to be their mother was killed in a car accident. At the time of the application the applicant, who was only 15, observed abductions, extortions and other crimes by the Taliban and believed elders confirming the death of his mother. He submitted his mother’s death certificate. In June 2013 the applicant’s mother made contact with the applicant and at that point he became aware that his parents were held captive by the Taliban but were alive. The father was released by the Taliban in 2014 and joined his mother in Iran. At the time of visa lodgement he truly believed his mother was dead and his father missing.

11. The Tribunal considers the applicant’s claims problematic.

12. Firstly, the Tribunal is concerned with the timing of these events as described by the applicant. The application for the visa was made in October 2011 and the processing took several years. The applicant’s visa was not granted until January 2013 and the applicant entered Australia shortly thereafter. The Tribunal considers it odd that throughout the lengthy processing of the application and until the applicant entered Australia, he claims to be unaware of his parents’ circumstances, yet within a few months of entering Australia, he ‘rediscovered’ that his parents were alive and started providing them with financial support. In oral evidence, the applicant could not explain the timing of these events, other than to state that he was very happy to find out that his mother was alive. The Tribunal considers it more likely that the applicant knew about his parents’ circumstances and that his mother was alive and that he always intended to provide them with financial support and has done so as soon as he was able to, following his entry to Australia.

13. Secondly, the primary decision record indicates that the applicant’s brother Ali, who was the sponsor in the applicant’s Orphan Relative visa application, sent money to their father Mohammad Essa on 19 June and 23 June 2013. The applicant’s claims that his father was released by the Taliban in 2014 and the money transfers to him in June 2013 contradict the applicant’s evidence about his parents’ circumstances.

14. In oral evidence to the Tribunal the applicant claims that he and his brother used their parents’ bank account when they fled to Iran and the money was sent from their brother in Australia to them in Iran for their living expenses. The applicant claims that they lived in a small town where everyone knows each other. It was difficult for him and his brother to open their own accounts in the bank as they were refugees and also because of age. His parents had a savings account from before 2005 from the time they lived in Iran, so the bank manager helped them by allowing them to use that account. The applicant said that the manager knew of their situation and tried to help but he warned the applicant that the account may be blocked and they would need to take out the money quickly.

15. The Tribunal considers it implausible that at the time when the applicant’s mother was considered to be dead or missing and when his father had been missing for years, the applicant’s parents would still have an operational bank account which the bank would allow the applicant and his brother to use for money transfers. The applicant does not claim that his or his brother’s name appeared on that account. The account was in the names of his parents. No matter how sympathetic the bank manager may have been, the Tribunal does not accept that the applicant or his brother would be allowed to use another person’s account for money transfers. In the Tribunal’s view, a more plausible explanation is that the account was used by the applicant’s parents or, even if it was used by the applicant and his brother, this was done with the express permission and authorisation of his parents. The transfers that occurred in June 2013 support the Tribunal’s view that the applicant’s parents were alive and well and not in captivity and that the applicant and his siblings were aware of their parents’ whereabouts.

16. Thirdly, the Tribunal is unpersuaded by the applicant’s account of why his mother was believed to have died in a car accident. The applicant’s evidence is that his mother was taken away in a car on her way from the local bazaar. They had not heard from the mother but assumed she was taken by the Taliban. Later on they found a woman involved in a car accident and the village elders assumed it was the applicant’s mother because she was the only person missing in the area. The Tribunal finds it implausible that the person would be assumed to be the applicant’s mother on the sole basis that she was the only missing person, when the village elders would have had some familiarity with the family and should have been able to visually identify the applicant’s mother. The applicant could not explain to the satisfaction of the Tribunal why neither the village elders, nor the hospital or any other organisation responsible for any formalities following a person’s death would not have verified the person’s identity before presuming it was the applicant’s mother. The Tribunal does not accept the applicant’s claims.

17. Fourthly, the applicant and his brother gave inconsistent accounts of their mother’s abduction. This information was the subject of an s.359AA process.

18. The applicant told the Tribunal initially that they did not know what happened to their mother but later on their brother told them that his mother was in a car with another Pashtun driver and they were travelling too fast and the car was involved in a crash. The applicant’s brother Yahya told the Tribunal his mother was taken by the Taliban in a car and the car was travelling fast and when his mother tried to leave the car, she was killed. The applicant made no mention of the car being driven by the Taliban abductor and of his mother trying to escape while the car was travelling at high speed.

19. To explain that discrepancy, the applicant told the Tribunal that he mentioned a Pashtun man while his brother referred to the Taliban driver because most people in the area where they lived were Pashtun and it was not possible to distinguish between the two. The car was going very fast and it was assumed they were escaping from the Taliban and the Pashtun person was helping their mother. Again, that contradicts Yahya’s claim that the car was driven by the Taliban as their mother was being abducted and that she was escaping from the driver, rather than with the driver. The Tribunal is mindful that a number of years had passed since the alleged incident and the applicant had the opportunity to speak to his mother and ascertain the facts.

20. For that reason also, the Tribunal has formed the view that the applicant has been untruthful in his claims and that his explanation concerning his parents is neither credible nor truthful.

21. The Tribunal has formed the view that throughout the processing of his Child visa application, the applicant was aware that his parents were alive and of their whereabouts. The Tribunal has formed the view that the applicant has not been truthful in his response to the NOICC and oral evidence to the Tribunal by stating that he genuinely believed his father to be of unknown whereabouts and his mother deceased. The Tribunal has formed the view that the applicant had fabricated these claims to assist him with the cancellation of the visa.

22. The Tribunal is mindful that under s.100 of the Act, an answer 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. Further, s.111 provides that the cancellation provisions apply whether or not the non-compliance was deliberate or inadvertent.

23. The Tribunal finds that when the application was made, the applicant’s mother was alive. The Tribunal is not satisfied that the whereabouts of either the applicant’s mother or his father were unknown. The Tribunal finds that the information the applicant gave on the application form in relation to being an Orphan relative was incorrect. The Tribunal finds that the applicant answered questions on the form, relating to his orphan relative status, in a way that incorrect answers were given. The Tribunal finds that the applicant did not comply with s.101 of the Act.

24. The Tribunal further finds that the mother’s death certificate which was submitted with the application was a bogus document either because it purports to have been issued, but was not issued in relation to a person or because it was issued on the basis of a false or misleading statement. The Tribunal finds that the applicant had given, presented, produced or provided, to an officer or the Minister or the Tribunal performing the function or purpose under the Act, a bogus document or caused such a document to be so given, presented, produced or provided. The Tribunal finds that the applicant did not comply with s.103 of the Act.

25. The Tribunal finds that there was non-compliance with s.101 and s.103 by the applicant in the way described in the s.107 notice.

    Should the visa be cancelled?

26. 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).

27. 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 Migration Regulations 1994. Briefly, they are:

    The correct information

28. The correct information is that the applicant’s parents, including the applicant’s mother, were alive and their whereabouts known. For the reasons stated above, the Tribunal does not accept the applicant’s explanation about the circumstances relating to his parents. The Tribunal is not satisfied his parents’ whereabouts were unknown.

    The content of the genuine document (if any)

29. The applicant provided a death certificate for his mother with his visa application. The mother has not passed away. The applicant told the Tribunal that the document was validly issued because they genuinely believed the mother had passed away. The Tribunal is mindful that s.5(c) of the definition of a ‘bogus document’ includes a document that was obtained because of a false or misleading statement, whether or not made knowingly. Thus, even if the Tribunal were to accept the applicant’s claims (which it does not), the Tribunal finds that the death certificate was obtained because of a false or misleading statement and was therefore a bogus document.

    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

30. It is a requirement of the definition of ‘orphan relative’ in r.1.14 that the applicant cannot be cared for by either parent because each of them is either dead, permanently incapacitated or of unknown whereabouts. That definition must be met at the time of application and the time of decision. The applicant was assessed as being an orphan relative because he claimed that his mother was dead and his father of unknown whereabouts. The information about the mother was incorrect. The Tribunal has formed the view that the mother was not dead and her whereabouts were not unknown. If that was known to the decision-maker, the applicant could not have met the definition of ‘orphan relative’ and would not have been granted the visa. The Tribunal finds that the decision to grant the visa was based, wholly or partly, on incorrect information and a bogus document.

    The circumstances in which the non-compliance occurred

31. The applicant states in his response to the NOICC and oral evidence to the Tribunal that he was unaware of his parents’ circumstances until June 2013 for his mother and April 2014 for his father. The applicant states that he believed his mother was deceased and his father missing when he made the application.

32. The applicant’s mother provided a statement to the delegate in which she claims that she was attacked and taken in a car in 2010, interrogated and subjected to physical harm. She was kept for three years before being released.

33. The applicant’s evidence concerning the circumstances relating to his parents is addressed above. For the reasons set out above, the Tribunal has formed the view that the applicant has not been truthful in his evidence. The Tribunal does not accept that the applicant believed his mother was dead and his father of unknown whereabouts. The Tribunal has formed the view that this evidence, together with the death certificate, was created to assist the applicant with his visa application. The Tribunal does not accept the mother’s statement because the Tribunal is of the view that the applicant is not a credible person and a statement from his mother was provided, at his behest, to assist with the visa process.

    The present circumstances of the visa holder

1. The applicant provided extensive information about his circumstances in his response to the NOICC and additional evidence to the Tribunal. The applicant refers to high school studies, noting that he was elected a school captain of his school and subsequently entered University, being the first one in his family to do so. The applicant states he is enrolled in a Bachelor of Aerospace and Commerce at UNSW as a scholarship student. In oral evidence the applicant refers to his past employment and a job offer for another job. The Tribunal accepts that the applicant has been successful academically, has completed a course in Australia and is pursuing further tertiary studies. The Tribunal also accepts the applicant has been gainfully employed.

2. The applicant refers to his involvement in various community activities, including as a founding member of the Afghan Society, fundraising for various charities and involvement in charitable organisations. The applicant provided with his response to the NOICC, documents from various organisations confirming the applicant’s involvement. He told the Tribunal he established a student support organisation at UNSW and has been involved with other organisations helping the community. The Tribunal accepts that evidence.

3. The applicant claims to be providing moral support to his two brothers in Australia. The Tribunal is prepared to accept that evidence.

4. The applicant told the Tribunal that after they came to Australia, they suffered trauma and it took them time to get over it. Since then, they have been helping the community. The applicant referred to running a company in Australia and states that the company is doing very well. The Tribunal accepts that evidence. The Tribunal accepts that the applicant is well settled in Australia.

5. The applicant stated that if they have to return to Afghanistan, they cannot support themselves and it would be difficult for them to find jobs because they are Hazara and because they do not know the language. Their brother in Australia would have to support them. The applicant also referred to the emotional connection with their brother in Australia. The applicant has not presented any documentary evidence to the Tribunal concerning his employment prospects in Afghanistan but the Tribunal accepts that returning to Afghanistan may cause a significant degree of hardship to the applicant.

   The subsequent behaviour of the visa holder concerning his or her obligations under Subdivision C of Division 3 of Part 2 of the Act

6. The delegate states in the decision that once the applicant realised his parents were alive and well, he was planning to contact the Department but was advised that his visa may be cancelled, so he decided to wait until the grant of citizenship. The delegate found that the applicant continued to mislead the Department. However, the Tribunal is mindful that the obligation to inform of any changes in circumstances existed until the applicant was immigration cleared, which occurred on his entry to Australia in February 2013. After that the applicant was under no obligation to inform about any changes in his circumstances.

   Any other instances of non-compliance by the visa holder known to the Minister

7. There are no other known instances of non-compliance by the visa holder. The applicant states in his submission to the delegate that he has been a law abiding and well regarded member of the community.

   The time that has elapsed since the non-compliance

8. The application for the visa was made in October 2011. Seven years has passed since the non-compliance.

   Any breaches of the law since the non-compliance and the seriousness of those breaches

9. There are no other known breaches of the law.

   Any contribution made by the holder to the community

10. As noted above, the applicant presented evidence of his numerous community activities, including his involvement in a number of community organisations and fundraising. The applicant referred to having established a student organisation at UNSW to help students from Afghanistan and a professional Afghan association where he is a State Representative. The Tribunal accepts that the applicant is making a significant contribution to the community.

11. 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 Procedures 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.

    Whether there are mandatory legal consequences, such as whether cancellation would result in the visa holder being unlawful and subject to detention, or whether indefinite detention is a possible consequence of cancellation, or whether there are provisions in the Act which prevent the person from making a valid visa application without the Minister’s intervention

12. If the applicant’s visa is cancelled and if he does not hold any other visa, the applicant may become an unlawful non-citizen and be subject to mandatory detention and removal from Australia. The applicant may be eligible to make a valid visa application for certain visas without the Minister’s intervention although he may be subject to an exclusion period. There is no suggestion that the applicant will be indefinitely detained. If the applicant is no longer a holder of a permanent visa, he may lose certain entitlements he may have had as a permanent resident of Australia.

    Whether there would be consequential cancellations under s.140

13. There are no consequential cancellations under s.140

    Whether any international obligations would be breached as a result of the cancellation, such as non-refoulement obligations, family unity principles or the obligation to consider the best interests of the child  

14. In his submission to the delegate the applicant refers to the unsafe situation in Afghanistan. The applicant provided a number of documents concerning the situation in Afghanistan and his mother also provided a statement indicating that it would be unsafe for the applicant to live in Afghanistan. The applicant refers to the various reasons he may be targeted.  The applicant refers to his involvement in a movement in Australia and claims for that reason also he would be targeted in Afghanistan. In oral evidence the applicant spoke about the persecution he would face in Afghanistan because of his foreign birth and because he has been living in a western country for many years.

15. Despite that evidence, the Tribunal does not consider that the applicant will be refouled if his visa is cancelled because the applicant is able to make an application for a protection visa if he believes Australia owes him protection obligations. The Full Federal Court stated in COT15 v MIBP (No 1) (2015) 236 FCR 148 that cancellation of a visa is legally distinct from removal. There is nothing in the applicant’s circumstances which prevents these claims of harm being canvassed in a protection visa application. There is no suggestion that the applicant is prevented from validly applying for, or being granted, a protection visa by s.48A of the Act or because of any character issues or any other criteria: see BCR16 v MIBP (2017) 248 FCR 456. Thus, whether or not his present visa remains cancelled, the applicant’s claims for Australia’s protection can be considered through a separate process. For that reason, the Tribunal finds that Australia’s non-refoulement obligations would not be breached as a result of the visa being cancelled.

16. There are no children who would be affected by the cancellation.

    Any other relevant matters, including the degree of hardship that may be caused to the visa holder and any family members

17. The applicant told the Tribunal that he cannot return to Iran because they had been deported once before. It would be difficult for them to live in Afghanistan because they do not speak the language. From childhood they were humiliated and persecuted by others because they were from Iran and their accents and appearance were different. The applicant states their culture and values are different and it would be hard for them to settle in Afghanistan. The Tribunal accepts that evidence and accepts that a considerable degree of hardship would be caused by the cancellation of the visa.

18. The applicant told the Tribunal that although he was unsure, it may be that he cannot hold his job if he is not a permanent resident of Australia. The applicant also thought that his education may be affected if his visa remains cancelled. The Tribunal acknowledges that if the applicant is not the holder of a permanent visa, his education and employment options in Australia may be affected.

19. The applicant told the Tribunal that his previous company has invested a lot of money into him to train him. The Tribunal acknowledges that evidence, although the Tribunal is mindful that the applicant is no longer employed by that company. The applicant also referred to his university scholarship, stating that a lot has been invested in him. The Tribunal accepts that investments have been made for the applicant’s future in Australia.

20. The Tribunal has considered the applicant’s circumstances. The Tribunal has formed the view that the applicant answered the questions on the application form in a way that incorrect answers were given and he also provided a bogus document with his application. The Tribunal found that there are grounds for cancelling the visa because the applicant did not comply with s.101 and 103 of the Act.

21. The Tribunal accepts that the non-compliance occurred seven years ago and since entering Australia the applicant is well settled in Australia. He has formed friendships and has found employment and supports his brother financially and emotionally. He contributes to the community. The Tribunal accepts that significant hardship would be caused to the applicant by the cancellation of the visa, particularly if the applicant would be required to leave Australia. The Tribunal accepts that this may affect the applicant’s relationship with his family and the breakdown of his marriage.

22. Against these considerations, the Tribunal has formed the view that the applicant had deliberately falsified information about his parents in order to qualify for the Orphan Relative visa. The Tribunal has formed the view that the applicant was untruthful in his description of events concerning his mother. The Tribunal does not accept that her whereabouts were unknown and she was certainly not deceased. These are significant untruths that were central to the applicant being able to meet the visa requirements and in the Tribunal’s view, the applicant had deliberately provided false information in order to obtain the visa.

23. The Tribunal has found that the cancellation would not result in Australia breaching its international obligations. There are no others affected by the consequential cancellations.

24. The Tribunal accepts that there are strong reasons why the visa should not be cancelled. However, the Tribunal places greater weight on the circumstances in which the non-compliance occurred and the applicant’s lack of candour when dealing with the Department. The Tribunal also places significant weight on the fact that the applicant would not have been entitled to the visa if the correct information was known, as his parents’ circumstances were central to his ability to meet the ‘orphan relative’ criteria and the eligibility for the visa. In the Tribunal’s view, these factors outweigh other considerations.

25. 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. Having regard to all the relevant circumstances, as discussed above, the Tribunal concludes that the visa should be cancelled.

    Conclusion

26. 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

27. The Tribunal affirms the decision to cancel the applicant’s Subclass 117 (Orphan Relative) visa.

    Kira Raif
    Senior Member