McGann (Migration)

This matter concerned an appeal by a visa applicant against the cancellation of their Subclass 417 (Working Holiday) visa. The dispute arose from information provided by the applicant in their visa application, specifically regarding whether they had undertaken the required three months of specified work in regional Australia. The applicant had indicated they had completed this work, providing details of an employer and their duties, but the employer subsequently reported no record of the applicant. The decision was made by Moira Brophy.

The legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the applicant had failed to comply with the requirements of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth) by providing incorrect information in their visa application, and if so, whether the visa should be cancelled. The Tribunal was required to determine if the notice issued under section 107 of the Act complied with statutory requirements and if the applicant's response, or lack thereof, warranted visa cancellation under section 109.

The Tribunal found that the notice issued under section 107 of the Act was valid and that the applicant had indeed failed to comply with section 101(b) of the Act by providing an incorrect answer to a question on their visa application. The Tribunal noted that section 100 of the Act clarifies that an answer is considered incorrect even if the applicant was unaware of the inaccuracy. Despite the applicant's claims of financial hardship and the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, the Tribunal affirmed the delegate's decision to cancel the visa.