Marriott- Kane (Migration)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal considered the cancellation of the applicant's Working Holiday (Temporary) (Class TZ) visa, Subclass 417. The dispute arose from the applicant's assertion in their visa application that they had completed three months of specified work in regional Australia, which was later contradicted by the employer's records.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicant had failed to comply with section 101(b) of the Migration Act 1958, which requires visa applicants to provide no incorrect answers. The Tribunal also had to determine if the delegate had issued a valid notice under section 107 of the Act, detailing the alleged non-compliance, and if, following this, the visa should be cancelled under the discretionary power provided by section 109(1) of the Act.

The Tribunal found that the applicant had indeed provided an incorrect answer in their visa application by claiming to have worked for a specific employer for three months in regional Australia, when that employer had no record of the applicant's employment. Despite the applicant's assertion that they had completed equivalent work in a regional area, the Tribunal concluded that the specific claim made in the application was false. The Tribunal was satisfied that the notice issued under section 107 complied with statutory requirements and that the non-compliance identified was as particularised in that notice. In exercising its discretion under section 109(1), the Tribunal considered the prescribed circumstances, including the nature of the non-compliance and the applicant's response.

The Tribunal affirmed the decision to cancel the applicant's Subclass 417 visa.