Long (Migration)

This matter concerned an application by Qin Long for review of the cancellation of her Student (Guardian) (Class TU) visa, subclass 590. The Department of Home Affairs had cancelled Ms Long's visa on the grounds that she had provided a bogus document and incorrect information regarding her financial capacity in her visa application. Ms Long contended that she was unaware of the bogus document, which was allegedly provided by a migration agent engaged by her sister, and that her financial information was not incorrect.

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal was required to determine whether Ms Long had failed to comply with the requirements of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth) by providing a bogus document and incorrect information, and if so, whether the discretion to cancel her visa should be exercised. The Tribunal considered whether the Personal Certificate of Deposit provided as evidence of funds was a bogus document under section 103 of the Act, and whether Ms Long's declaration of having sufficient funds was an incorrect answer under section 101(b) of the Act. The Tribunal also had to consider various factors relevant to the exercise of the discretion to cancel the visa, including the applicant's personal circumstances, the passage of time, and Australia's international obligations.

The Tribunal found that the Personal Certificate of Deposit was indeed a bogus document, and that Ms Long had provided incorrect information regarding her financial capacity. Despite Ms Long's claims of ignorance and reliance on an agent, the Tribunal determined that she was responsible for the information and documents provided in her application. The Tribunal then considered the discretion to cancel the visa, noting that while Ms Long had established a life in Australia, including a marriage to an Australian citizen, and her daughter was no longer a minor, these factors did not outweigh the seriousness of the non-compliance. The Tribunal also considered that Australia's international obligations, including non-refoulement obligations and the best interests of children, were not engaged in this case.

Ultimately, the Tribunal affirmed the decision to cancel Ms Long's visa. The Tribunal concluded that the non-compliance was significant and that the circumstances did not warrant the exercise of discretion to set aside the cancellation.