Lei (Migration)

This matter concerned an appeal by the applicant against the decision to cancel their Subclass 500 (Student) visa. The cancellation was based on alleged incorrect information provided in a previous application for a Subclass 417 Working Holiday visa, specifically regarding three months of regional work. The Tribunal found that the applicant was complicit, negligent, or recklessly indifferent regarding the accuracy of the information provided in that earlier application, and had not taken adequate steps to ensure its correctness.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicant had failed to comply with the requirements of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth) concerning the provision of correct information in visa applications. This involved determining if the notice issued under section 107 of the Act complied with statutory requirements and whether the applicant's previous Working Holiday visa application contained incorrect answers, thereby breaching section 101(b) of the Act. The Tribunal also considered the effect of section 107A of the Act, which permits the cancellation of a current visa due to non-compliance with a previous visa application.

The Tribunal reasoned that section 101(b) of the Act mandates that a non-citizen must not provide incorrect answers in their visa application form. It noted that section 100 clarifies that an answer is considered incorrect even if the person providing it did not know it was incorrect. Furthermore, section 99 establishes that any information provided on behalf of a non-citizen is taken as an answer to a question in the application form. The Tribunal was satisfied that the notice issued under section 107 was valid and that the applicant had indeed provided incorrect information in their Working Holiday visa application by stating they had undertaken three months of regional work when this was not the case.

The Tribunal affirmed the decision to cancel the applicant's Subclass 500 visa.