Mills (Migration)

This matter concerned the review of a decision to cancel Mr Godwin Paul Mills' Subclass 176 (Skilled – Sponsored) visa. Mr Mills, a Nigerian national, had applied for the visa in 2009, which was granted in 2010. His then-wife and two young sons were included as migrating dependents. The Department of Immigration subsequently issued a notice of intention to cancel Mr Mills' visa under s.109 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth), alleging non-compliance with ss.101 and 103 of the Act. The grounds for cancellation were that Mr Mills had provided incorrect information in his visa application regarding the parentage of his migrating dependents and had subsequently provided bogus birth certificates to support these claims. The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (the Tribunal) affirmed the delegate's decision to cancel the visa.

The primary legal issues before the Tribunal were whether Mr Mills had failed to comply with ss.101 and 103 of the Act, as particularised in the s.107 notice, and if so, whether the visa should be cancelled. Section 101 of the Act requires visa applicants to provide true and correct information, while s.103 prohibits the presentation of bogus documents. The Tribunal was required to determine if the information provided by Mr Mills regarding the parentage of his sons was incorrect and if the birth certificates submitted were indeed bogus documents. Furthermore, the Tribunal considered whether the notice of intention to cancel issued under s.107 of the Act was valid and whether Mr Mills had been afforded procedural fairness, particularly in relation to potentially adverse information.

The Tribunal found that Mr Mills had provided incorrect information in his visa application by stating that the two migrating dependents were his and his wife's children, when subsequent information indicated they were the children of Mr Mills' sister. The Tribunal also found that the birth certificates submitted in support of the application, which listed Mr Mills as the father and his then-wife as the mother, were bogus documents. The Tribunal was satisfied that the s.107 notice was valid and that Mr Mills had been afforded procedural fairness, including being provided with copies of the s.375A certificate and having the opportunity to respond to potentially adverse information. The Tribunal concluded that Mr Mills had actively misled the Department and circumvented Australia's migration law, and that the grounds for cancellation were made out.

The Tribunal affirmed the decision to cancel Mr Mills' visa.