Lin (Migration)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal affirmed a delegate's decision to cancel the applicant's Return (Residence) (Class BB) visa, Subclass 155 (Five Year Resident Return). The dispute arose from the applicant's initial application for a Skilled – Independent visa (Subclass 189) in July 2016, where she claimed to be the de facto partner of Mr Chen. In support of this claim, she provided various documents, including bank statements, a utility bill, a residential tenancy agreement, and personal statements, all indicating they resided together at a Zetland address from June 2014. The Tribunal was satisfied that the delegate had reached the necessary state of mind to engage section 107 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) and that the notice issued complied with statutory requirements.

The core legal issues before the Tribunal concerned whether the applicant had provided bogus documents or information that was false or misleading in connection with her visa application, thereby justifying the cancellation of her subsequent visa. Specifically, the Tribunal had to determine if the documents submitted in support of her de facto relationship claim were indeed fraudulent, and if the applicant was aware of or involved in such fraud. The Tribunal also considered the applicant's subsequent application for Australian citizenship, where she provided an address inconsistent with her earlier visa application, and her explanation regarding her migration agent.

The Tribunal's reasoning focused on the findings of a Forensic Document Examiner, who determined that the addresses on the Commonwealth Bank statements and Vodaphone bill submitted by the applicant had been intentionally altered. The Examiner concluded that these documents were sent to different addresses (Maroubra, Parramatta, and Kensington) and not the Zetland address as claimed. Furthermore, the Tribunal noted the inconsistency between the applicant's claimed residence in Zetland for her Skilled visa application and her later statement of residence in Rozelle and Rhodes for her citizenship application. The applicant's assertion that she provided documents to her migration agent but did not participate in their alteration was considered, but the Tribunal also noted that Mr Chen's Skilled visa application was made without the use of an agent.

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