Li (Migration)

This matter concerned the review of a decision to cancel the applicant's Subclass 155 (Five Year Resident Return) visa. The applicant, a national of China, had a complex migration history in Australia, including periods of unlawful status, detention, and voluntary departure. She had previously applied for visas under different names and dates of birth, and these applications had been unsuccessful. The current dispute arose from the applicant's failure to declare this previous migration history and associated identities when applying for subsequent visas, including the visa that was ultimately cancelled.

The primary legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the Notice of Intention to Consider Cancellation (NOICC) complied with the statutory requirements of section 107 of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth), and if so, whether there had been a non-compliance with section 101 of the Act, which mandates the provision of correct information in visa applications. The Tribunal was also required to consider whether the visa grant decisions were based, wholly or partly, on incorrect information provided by the applicant.

The Tribunal found that the NOICC was valid and contained sufficient particulars for the applicant to understand and respond to the allegations of non-compliance. It determined that the applicant had indeed provided incorrect answers regarding her previous names and identity information in her applications for both a Contributory Parent visa and the Resident Return visa. The Tribunal rejected the applicant's claim that her previous migration agent was solely responsible for the incorrect information, finding that the incorrect information formed a basis for the grant of both the Contributory Parent and Resident Return visas.

Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the decision to cancel the applicant's visa, concluding that the cancellation was warranted due to the provision of incorrect information in her visa applications.