O'Hagan (Migration)

This matter concerned an application for review of a decision by a delegate of the Minister for Home Affairs to cancel the applicant’s Working Holiday (Extension) (Onshore) (subclass 417) visa. The applicant, a citizen of the Republic of Ireland, had been granted a second working holiday visa which the delegate proposed to cancel under section 109(1) of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth) for contravening section 101(b) of the Act. This contravention arose from information provided in the applicant's visa application concerning specified work undertaken while holding her first working holiday visa, which departmental checks indicated was not recorded by the employer.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicant had contravened section 101(b) of the Act by providing incorrect information in her visa application, and if so, whether her visa should be cancelled. Section 101(b) requires that no incorrect answers be given in a visa application form. The Tribunal was also required to consider the applicant's response to the notice of intention to cancel, her claims about the application being completed by another person, and the discretionary nature of the cancellation power under section 109(1).

The Tribunal affirmed the delegate's decision to cancel the applicant's visa. The delegate had found that the applicant provided incorrect information regarding her employment, as the stated employer had no record of her working for them and indicated that no workers were present at the farm during the claimed period. The Tribunal noted that section 100 of the Act states that an answer is incorrect even if the person did not know it was incorrect. While the applicant claimed the application was lodged by another person and expressed concerns about travel due to COVID-19 and her employment in a critical sector, the Tribunal found that the core issue of providing incorrect information in the visa application remained. The applicant's submission that someone else completed the application on her behalf did not negate the fact that incorrect information was provided, and she had not demonstrated compliance with section 101(b).

The Tribunal affirmed the decision to cancel the applicant’s Working Holiday (Extension) (Onshore) (subclass 417) visa.