Mao (Migration)

This matter concerned an appeal by a visa holder against the cancellation of their Subclass 500 (Student) visa. The dispute arose from allegations that the visa holder had provided incorrect information and a bogus document in support of their visa application, contrary to sections 101 and 103 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth). The decision was made by Wendy Banfield, a member of the Tribunal.

The primary legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the visa holder had failed to comply with the provisions of the Act as particularised in the notice issued under section 107, and if so, whether the visa should be cancelled. The Tribunal was required to determine if the information provided regarding the applicant's educational qualifications was incorrect and if a bogus document had been submitted, and then to consider the discretionary power to cancel the visa under section 109.

The Tribunal found that the applicant had indeed provided incorrect information concerning their educational qualifications and had submitted a bogus document, constituting non-compliance with sections 101 and 103 of the Act. The Tribunal was satisfied that the notice issued under section 107 complied with statutory requirements and that the delegate had reached the necessary state of mind to engage that section. Despite the discretionary nature of cancellation under section 109(1), the Tribunal concluded that, after weighing the evidence and considering all relevant circumstances, the visa should be cancelled.

Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the decision to cancel the applicant’s Subclass 500 (Student) visa.