LU (Migration)

This matter concerned an appeal by LU (the applicant) against the decision of the Minister to cancel her Subclass 186 Employer Nomination Scheme visa. The dispute arose from the provision of a bogus document, specifically an employment contract, in support of her visa application. The applicant claimed she did not deliberately participate in the creation of a contrived employment arrangement, despite one of her children being an Australian citizen and the possibility of acquiring Chinese citizenship for him. The case was heard by R. Skaros.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicant had failed to comply with the requirements of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth) by providing a bogus document, and if so, whether her visa should be cancelled. This involved determining if the notice issued under section 107 of the Act complied with statutory requirements and whether the applicant's actions constituted non-compliance with section 103 of the Act, which prohibits the provision of bogus documents. The Tribunal also considered the impact of the cancellation on the applicant's children, including Australia's international obligations under the Convention on the Rights of the Child.

The Tribunal found that the notice issued under section 107 was valid and that the applicant had indeed failed to comply with section 103 by providing a bogus document. While acknowledging the applicant's assertion of not deliberately procuring the document, the Tribunal was satisfied that the evidence strongly suggested she was aware the employment arrangement was not genuine. The Tribunal considered various factors, including the applicant's desire to raise her children in Australia and the fact that one child is an Australian citizen. However, it weighed these against the serious and significant breach of providing a bogus document, which undermined the integrity of the immigration program. The Tribunal concluded that the factors favouring cancellation outweighed those against it.

The Tribunal affirmed the decision to cancel the applicant's Subclass 186 visa. The Tribunal also noted that it had no jurisdiction with respect to the other applicant.