OU YANG (Migration)

This matter concerned an application for review of a decision by the Department of Home Affairs to cancel the applicant's Subclass 500 (Student) visa. The applicant, Ou Yang, had previously been granted a Working Holiday (Extension) (class TZ subclass 417) visa based on information provided in her application. The Department later received information indicating that the applicant had not undertaken the specified regional work claimed in that application, leading to the cancellation of her subsequent Student visa.

The primary legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the applicant had failed to comply with the requirements of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth) by providing incorrect information in her Working Holiday visa application, and if so, whether the cancellation of her Student visa was justified. Specifically, the Tribunal considered whether the applicant's response to the question regarding regional work constituted an incorrect answer under section 101(b) of the Act, and whether this non-compliance, as particularised in the notice issued under section 107, warranted visa cancellation under section 109.

The Tribunal found that the applicant had knowingly provided incorrect information in her Working Holiday visa application, breaching section 101(b) of the Act. This non-compliance was established by evidence from the owner of the Australian Business Number (ABN) provided by the applicant, who confirmed she had not worked for their entity. Despite acknowledging the incorrect information and presenting factors in her favour, such as her intention not to remain in Australia at the time of the incorrect application, her subsequent completion of study, current employment, and relationship, the Tribunal concluded that the evidence weighed heavily in favour of cancellation.

Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the decision to cancel the applicant's Subclass 500 (Student) visa.