Keerthi (Migration)

This matter concerned an appeal by Keerthi against a decision by the Minister to cancel her Student (Temporary) (Class TU) visa, subclass 500. The cancellation was based on the grounds that Keerthi had provided incorrect information in her visa application, specifically a "bogus document" in the form of a sanction of loan letter, and that she had not demonstrated sufficient financial capacity. The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) affirmed the Minister's decision.

The primary legal issue before the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia was whether the Tribunal erred in law by affirming the Minister's decision to cancel Keerthi's visa. This involved determining whether the Tribunal had properly considered the evidence regarding the financial capacity and the authenticity of the loan letter, and whether it had correctly applied the relevant provisions of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth) and associated regulations concerning visa cancellation and the exercise of discretion.

The Court found that the Tribunal had not erred in law. It reasoned that the Tribunal was entitled to conclude, based on the evidence before it, that the loan letter was a bogus document and that Keerthi had failed to demonstrate genuine financial capacity. The Tribunal had considered the evidence presented by Keerthi, including her explanation for the loan letter, and had found it unconvincing. The Court affirmed that the Tribunal had correctly applied the principles of administrative law, including the requirement to consider all relevant evidence and to provide adequate reasons for its decision. The Tribunal's finding that Keerthi was aware that false information had been provided was central to its affirmation of the cancellation decision.