Leung (Migration)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal, through Member Karen Synon, considered the cancellation of the applicant's Subclass 457 (Temporary Work (Skilled)) visa. The dispute arose from allegations of non-compliance with visa application requirements, specifically providing incorrect information in a previous visa application, which formed the basis for the cancellation of the current visa.

The primary legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the applicant had failed to comply with section 101(b) of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth) by providing incorrect answers in a previous visa application, and if so, whether the decision to cancel the applicant's current visa should be affirmed. The Tribunal was required to determine if the notice issued under section 107 of the Act complied with statutory requirements and if the non-compliance alleged in the notice had occurred.

The Tribunal reasoned that section 109 of the Act permits the Minister to cancel a visa if the holder has failed to comply with certain provisions, including section 101, which mandates that visa applications contain no incorrect answers. The Tribunal noted that section 100 clarifies that an answer is considered incorrect even if the applicant was unaware of its inaccuracy. Furthermore, section 107A allows for the cancellation of a current visa based on non-compliance with a previous visa. The Tribunal found that the delegate had properly engaged section 107 and that the notice issued complied with the statutory requirements. It was satisfied that the applicant had indeed provided incorrect information in relation to a previous Subclass 417 Working Holiday (Extension) visa application, constituting a breach of section 101(b).

Having found that non-compliance occurred as particularised in the section 107 notice, and having regard to all relevant circumstances, the Tribunal concluded that the decision to cancel the applicant's Subclass 457 visa should be affirmed.