Ma (Migration)

This matter concerned the cancellation of a Partner (Migrant) (Class BC) visa, Subclass 100, held by the applicant, Ma. The dispute arose from allegations that the applicant had provided incorrect information in her visa application, specifically failing to declare a previous marriage and a child from that marriage, and that she had subsequently divorced her sponsor. The decision was made by a Senior Member of the Tribunal.

The legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the 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 should be cancelled. The Tribunal was required to determine if the incorrect information provided was significant enough to warrant cancellation, considering whether the visa grant was based wholly or partly on this misinformation.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's failure to declare her previous marriage and child constituted non-compliance with section 101(b) of the Act, as these were significant pieces of information that were not disclosed. The Tribunal was not persuaded by arguments that this non-compliance was of minor significance or that it would not have affected the visa outcome. It reasoned that the delegate assessing the visa application relied on incomplete and incorrect information, and that knowledge of the applicant's prior marriage and child might have led the delegate to consider different aspects of the sponsorship, such as the sponsor's financial capacity and willingness to share responsibility for a child. Consequently, the Tribunal was satisfied that the decision to grant the visa was based, in part, on the incorrect information provided.

The Tribunal affirmed the decision to cancel the applicant's Subclass 100 visa. The Tribunal noted it had no jurisdiction with respect to the other applicant mentioned.