O'Loan (Migration)

This matter concerned an appeal by the applicant against the cancellation of her Subclass 417 (Working Holiday) visa. The dispute arose from information provided in her application for a further Subclass 417 visa, specifically regarding her alleged completion of three months of specified work in a regional area. The Tribunal was required to determine whether the applicant had complied with the requirements of her visa application and, if not, whether the cancellation of her visa was justified.

The legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the applicant had provided incorrect information in her visa application, contrary to section 101 of the Migration Act 1958, and whether she had complied with the notice issued under section 107 of the Act. The Tribunal considered the applicant's evidence, including her initial claims of unawareness regarding the contents of her application and her eventual concession that the claims of specified regional work were untrue. The Tribunal also had regard to the provisions of section 98 of the Act, which states that a non-citizen is taken to have filled in their application form if it is filled in on their behalf.

The Tribunal found that the applicant had indeed provided incorrect information in her visa application, accepting that she had paid $1,000 to an unidentified individual from her boyfriend's workplace to prepare the application. Despite initially denying knowledge of the application's contents, she ultimately conceded that she knew she had to perform three months of specified regional work for the visa and had not done so. The Tribunal concluded that there was non-compliance by the applicant as described in the notice issued under section 107. Having considered all relevant circumstances, the Tribunal affirmed the decision to cancel the applicant's Subclass 417 visa.