O'Mahony (Migration)

This matter concerned an application by a visa holder to set aside a decision to cancel their Working Holiday (Temporary) (Class TZ) visa, Subclass 417. The dispute arose from allegations that the applicant had provided false information in their visa application, specifically regarding the required six months of work in regional Australia. The decision was made by the Tribunal.

The Tribunal was required to determine two key issues: first, whether the applicant had indeed failed to comply with the requirements of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth) as particularised in the notice issued under section 107 of the Act; and second, if non-compliance was established, whether the visa should be cancelled. The notice identified the non-compliance as answering "Yes" to having carried out at least six months of specified work in response to a question on the visa application.

The Tribunal found that while the applicant had acknowledged receiving the section 107 notice and admitted to not responding due to panic, the non-compliance alleged in the notice was established. However, the Tribunal then considered the applicant's circumstances, including their valuable contribution to the community through voluntary work and strong family ties to Australian citizens. Applying the principles of discretion in visa cancellation, the Tribunal concluded that, having regard to all relevant circumstances, 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 visa.