O'Shea (Migration)

This matter concerned an appeal by a visa holder against the cancellation of their Subclass 417 (Working Holiday) visa. The applicant had been granted the visa on 22 October 2020. The dispute arose from allegations that the applicant had provided incorrect information in their visa application, specifically regarding whether they had undertaken at least three months of specified work in regional Australia. The decision was made by Moira Brophy, a member of the Tribunal.

The primary legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the applicant had failed to comply with section 101(b) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) by providing incorrect answers in their visa application, and if so, whether the visa should be cancelled. The Tribunal was required to determine if the notice issued under section 107 of the Act complied with statutory requirements and if the non-compliance alleged in the notice was established. The Tribunal also considered the applicant's response to the notice and whether they had shown cause why the visa should not be cancelled.

The Tribunal found that the notice issued under section 107 of the Act was valid and complied with the statutory requirements. It further determined that the applicant had indeed provided incorrect information in their visa application, contrary to section 101(b) of the Act. This non-compliance related to the applicant's assertion that they had completed 90 days of specified work, including cherry picking and packing, between 16 March 2020 and 5 July 2020, for Lincara Pty Ltd trading as Wandin Valley Farms. The Tribunal concluded that, having regard to all relevant circumstances, the visa should be cancelled.

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