PARK (Migration)

This matter concerned an application for review of a decision by the Minister to cancel the applicant's Working Holiday (Temporary) (Class TZ) visa, subclass 417. The cancellation was based on the ground that the applicant had provided incorrect information in their visa application, specifically concerning specified work undertaken in a regional area. The applicant sought to have this cancellation decision affirmed.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the Minister had correctly exercised their discretion in cancelling the applicant's visa. This involved determining whether the applicant had indeed provided incorrect information, and if so, whether the prescribed circumstances for mandatory cancellation were met, or if the Minister had properly considered the discretionary elements in reaching their decision. A further issue was the applicant's eligibility for a Working Holiday Visa extension.

The court considered the provisions of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth) and associated regulations concerning visa cancellation. It was established that the Minister must first decide if there was non-compliance by the visa holder, consider any response provided by the holder, and then have regard to prescribed circumstances before exercising the power to cancel. If the regulations declared circumstances in which a visa *must* be cancelled, the Minister was obliged to do so. The court's analysis focused on whether the applicant's stated work experience met the requirements for the visa and its extension, and whether the information provided was demonstrably incorrect.

The decision affirmed the Minister's decision to cancel the visa.