Lam (Migration)

This matter concerned the review of a decision to cancel the Subclass 500 (Student) visa held by the applicant, Ms. Lam. The dispute arose from allegations that Ms. Lam had provided incorrect information in a previous application for a Working Holiday (Extension) (class TZ subclass 417) visa, which was a ground for the cancellation of her current student visa under section 109 of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth). The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (Cth) was tasked with determining whether the cancellation was justified.

The primary legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the applicant had failed to comply with the requirements of section 101 of the Act by providing incorrect information in her Working Holiday visa application, and if so, whether the visa cancellation was warranted. Specifically, the Tribunal had to consider whether the notice issued under section 107 of the Act, detailing the alleged non-compliance, was valid and whether the applicant's subsequent failure to respond to the Tribunal's communications or attend a hearing meant the Tribunal could proceed to make a decision based on the available information.

The Tribunal found that the applicant had breached section 101(b) of the Act by answering "Yes" to a question about undertaking specified work in regional Australia and providing details that were later contradicted by advice from the registered business. The Tribunal was satisfied that the notice issued under section 107 complied with statutory requirements and that the applicant had been given a fair opportunity to attend a hearing, despite her lack of response or explanation for her absence. Applying the principles that an incorrect answer is still incorrect even if not known to be so, and that section 107A permits cancellation of a current visa based on non-compliance with a previous visa, the Tribunal concluded that the non-compliance was established.

Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the delegate's decision to cancel the applicant's Subclass 500 (Student) visa.