Murphy (Migration)

This matter concerned a review of a decision to cancel the applicant's Subclass 417 (Working Holiday) visa. The dispute arose from the applicant's assertion in her visa application that she had undertaken three months of specified work in regional Australia, a requirement for extending her Working Holiday visa. The Department of Home Affairs had received information from an employer indicating no record of the applicant's employment, leading to the cancellation decision. The applicant, represented by a registered migration agent, attended an audio hearing to present her case.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicant had failed to comply with section 101(b) of the Migration Act 1958 by providing incorrect information in her visa application. Specifically, the Tribunal had to determine if the applicant had indeed undertaken the claimed specified work and, if not, whether this constituted a ground for visa cancellation under section 109 of the Act. The Tribunal also considered whether the notice issued under section 107 of the Act, which particularised the alleged non-compliance, was valid and complied with statutory requirements.

The Tribunal found that the notice issued under section 107 was valid and that the applicant had indeed provided incorrect information in her application by claiming to have completed three months of specified work when she had not. This was supported by the applicant's representative's submission acknowledging that the applicant had not undertaken any specified work at the relevant time. However, despite finding non-compliance, the Tribunal exercised its discretion under section 109(1) of the Act. Applying the principles of administrative review, the Tribunal considered all relevant circumstances and concluded that the visa should not be cancelled.

Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the decision under review and substituted a decision not to cancel the applicant's Subclass 417 (Working Holiday) visa.