Legalche Royer (Migration)

This matter concerned an application for review of a decision by a delegate of the Minister for Home Affairs to cancel the applicant’s Subclass 417 (Working Holiday) visa. The applicant had previously held a Subclass 417 visa which expired in November 2020, and he applied for a second such visa in October 2020, which was granted. The delegate issued a Notice of Intention to Consider Cancellation (NOICC) on the basis that the applicant had failed to comply with section 101(b) of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth). Following the applicant's response, the delegate cancelled the visa under section 109(1) of the Act. The applicant then sought review of this decision by the Tribunal.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicant had provided incorrect answers in his application for the second Subclass 417 visa, thereby contravening section 101(b) of the Act, and if so, whether the visa should be cancelled under section 109. Section 101(b) requires a non-citizen to complete their visa application form in such a way that no incorrect answers are given. Section 109(1) permits the Minister to cancel a visa if the holder has failed to comply with section 101, after considering any response to a notice of non-compliance and any prescribed circumstances.

The Tribunal considered the applicant's visa application, which stated he had completed three months of specified work with Quenby Viticultural Services in Western Australia. The Tribunal also considered the applicant's explanation that his brother, who was in Australia, had assisted him with his first visa application by translating questions over the telephone. For the second visa application, the applicant stated he received assistance from a person named Max at a Bondi Beach hostel, who helped him with the more complicated aspects of the online form, particularly when attempting to attach payslips. The Tribunal noted that no payslips were attached to the application and that the applicant later clarified these payslips were for work with Eco Line Solution Installations Pty Ltd, not Quenby Viticultural Services. The Tribunal found that the applicant had provided incorrect information in his visa application, contrary to section 101(b) of the Act. After considering the applicant's reasons for the non-compliance and the relevant discretionary factors, the delegate determined that the visa should be cancelled.

The Tribunal affirmed the delegate's decision to cancel the applicant's Subclass 417 (Working Holiday) visa.