Mohammed (Migration)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal considered the cancellation of the applicant's Subclass 500 (Student) visa. The dispute arose from allegations that the applicant had failed to comply with certain provisions of the Migration Act 1958, specifically by providing incorrect information and a bogus document in support of his visa application.

The Tribunal was required to determine whether the applicant had indeed failed to comply with the relevant sections of the Act, namely sections 101(b) and 103, by providing a purported ‘Loan Letter’ from the State Bank of India that was found to be incorrect and a bogus document. The Tribunal also had to consider whether the delegate had properly engaged the cancellation power under section 109 of the Act and whether the notice issued under section 107 complied with statutory requirements. Finally, the Tribunal had to weigh the grounds for cancellation against any grounds for not cancelling the visa.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's Student visa was granted partly based on incorrect information and a bogus document, specifically a ‘Loan Letter’ presented as evidence of financial capacity. This document, purportedly from the State Bank of India, did not genuinely reflect the sanctioning of an education loan for the applicant's studies in Australia. The Tribunal was satisfied that the notice issued under section 107 of the Act complied with statutory requirements and that the applicant had failed to comply with sections 101(b) and 103 of the Act. While the applicant claimed his Education Agent fabricated the document and he was unaware of its falsity, the Tribunal concluded that the circumstances of non-compliance, including the provision of incorrect information and a bogus document, outweighed any grounds for not cancelling the visa.

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