Lin (Migration)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal considered the cancellation of the first applicant's Employer Nomination (Permanent) (Class EN) visa, Subclass 186 (Employer Nomination Scheme). The dispute arose from allegations that the applicant provided incorrect information regarding her employment history in her visa application. The Tribunal also noted that the second applicant, the first applicant's husband, had his visa cancelled as a consequence, and that their child was an Australian citizen.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the first applicant had failed to comply with section 101(b) of the Migration Act 1958 by providing incorrect answers in her visa application, and if so, whether the visa cancellation decision should be affirmed. This involved determining if the employment history provided was indeed false or misleading, and whether the delegate had a valid basis to issue a Notice of Intention to Consider Cancellation (NOICC) under section 107 of the Act. The Tribunal also considered the best interests of the child and the applicants' residence and financial prospects in Australia.

The Tribunal reasoned that the first applicant had not provided sufficient dispositive evidence to refute the non-compliance identified in the NOICC, which alleged she was not employed by two claimed employers. Verification checks indicated no record of employment with one company and that the other was not registered until after the claimed employment period. The Tribunal attached significant weight to this lack of evidence, noting that the incorrect information likely influenced the delegate's decision to grant the visas. While acknowledging the applicants' current residence in Australia, their purchased home, the child's citizenship, and the first applicant's health concerns, the Tribunal found these factors carried less weight than the established non-compliance. The Tribunal concluded it had no jurisdiction concerning the second applicant.