LU (Migration)

This matter concerned the review of a decision to cancel the applicant’s Subclass 417 (Working Holiday) visa. The applicant had applied for an extension of this visa, declaring that she had undertaken specified work in regional Australia for a total of three months. She provided details of the employer, including an ABN, postcode, and employment dates. Following the grant of the extended visa, the employer advised the Department that the applicant had never worked for them. A notice under s.107 of the Migration Act 1958 was issued to the applicant, detailing the alleged non-compliance with s.101 of the Act due to providing incorrect answers in her visa application. The applicant did not respond to this notice, and her visa was subsequently cancelled.

The Tribunal was required to determine whether a valid notice under s.107 of the Act had been issued and whether the applicant had failed to comply with the requirements of s.101 of the Act by providing incorrect information in her visa application. The Tribunal also had to consider whether, having found non-compliance, the visa should be cancelled.

The Tribunal found that the notice issued under s.107 complied with the statutory requirements and that the delegate had reached the necessary state of mind to engage the cancellation power. It further determined that the applicant had provided incorrect answers in her application for the Working Holiday (Subclass 417) visa, as the specified employer confirmed she had not worked there for the claimed period. The Tribunal applied the principle that an answer is considered incorrect for the purposes of the Act even if the applicant was unaware it was incorrect, as per s.100. Having found non-compliance with s.101, and having regard to all relevant circumstances, the Tribunal concluded that the visa should be cancelled.

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