Mughal (Migration)

This matter concerned the review of a decision to cancel the applicant's Regional Sponsored Migration Scheme (Subclass 187) visa. The cancellation was based on allegations that the applicant had provided a bogus document and incorrect information in support of a previous Student (subclass 572) visa application, which was considered material to its grant. The applicant's father had lodged allegations concerning the applicant's study record and the integrity of documents provided.

The primary legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the applicant had failed to comply with section 101 (visa applications to be correct) and section 103 (bogus documents not to be given) of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth), as particularised in the notice issued under section 107 of the Act, and if so, whether the applicant's Subclass 187 visa should be cancelled. The Tribunal was required to determine if the Intermediate Examination Results Card provided for the Student visa application was a bogus document or if incorrect information had been provided regarding the applicant's highest qualification obtained outside Australia.

The Tribunal found that while the notice issued under section 107 of the Act complied with statutory requirements and the delegate had reached the necessary state of mind to engage section 107, it was not satisfied that the applicant had engaged in non-compliance as described in the notice. The Tribunal noted the applicant's successful study record in Australia and the allegations made by the applicant's father, which suggested a breakdown in their relationship and potential for malice. Crucially, the Tribunal was not satisfied that the Intermediate Examination Results Card was a bogus document or that incorrect information had been provided, particularly in light of the applicant's subsequent successful study and employment records in Australia.

Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the decision under review and substituted a decision not to cancel the applicant's Subclass 187 visa. The Tribunal concluded that as it was not satisfied that there was non-compliance by the applicant in the manner particularised in the section 107 notice, the discretionary power to cancel the visa did not arise.