Lohan (Migration)

This matter concerned the review of a decision to cancel the applicant's Subclass 417 (Working Holiday) visa. The applicant had applied for a Working Holiday (Extension) visa, and the Department of Home Affairs subsequently issued a notice of intention to consider cancellation of the applicant's existing visa. The grounds for potential cancellation were that the applicant had provided incorrect information in their extension visa application, specifically regarding the completion of three months of specified work in regional Australia.

The legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the applicant had failed to comply with the requirements of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth) by providing incorrect information in their visa application, and if so, whether the decision to cancel the visa should be affirmed. The Tribunal was required to determine if the notice of intention to consider cancellation issued under section 107 of the Act was valid and if the particulars of non-compliance provided were accurate.

The Tribunal considered the provisions of section 101(b) of the Act, which requires visa applicants to provide no incorrect answers. It noted that section 100 clarifies that an answer is incorrect even if the applicant was unaware of its inaccuracy. The Tribunal found that the applicant had claimed to have completed 90 days of specified work with Pearl Recruitment Group in Western Australia, which was a requirement for the extension visa. However, employment verification checks with Pearl Recruitment Group indicated that the applicant had never worked for them. Based on this evidence, the Tribunal was satisfied that the applicant had provided incorrect information in their visa application, thereby failing to comply with section 101(b). The Tribunal also found that the notice of intention to consider cancellation issued under section 107 complied with the statutory requirements.

The Tribunal affirmed the decision to cancel the applicant’s Subclass 417 (Working Holiday) visa.