Pattar (Migration)

This matter concerned an appeal by Mr. Pattar against a decision to cancel his Subclass 186 Employer Nomination Scheme visa. The cancellation was based on Mr. Pattar providing incorrect answers in his visa application, specifically regarding whether he had been known by other names and whether he had ever been removed, deported, or excluded from any country. He also provided inaccurate details about countries where he had spent significant time and failed to declare previous travel to Australia. The Tribunal was required to determine whether Mr. Pattar had indeed non-complied with the relevant provisions of the Migration Act 1958 and, if so, whether his visa should be cancelled.

The Tribunal found that Mr. Pattar had breached section 101(b) of the Act by providing incorrect answers on his visa application. Mr. Pattar admitted to this non-compliance, explaining that he had deliberately changed his name and provided false information to circumvent a previous exclusion period and to be reunited with his future wife. He acknowledged that his actions were "foolhardy" but motivated by a desire to build a life with her. The Tribunal considered the circumstances of the non-compliance, including Mr. Pattar's explanation that he was advised by friends to adopt a new name and that he was blinded by love.

Despite finding that non-compliance occurred, the Tribunal ultimately decided not to cancel Mr. Pattar's visa. In reaching this decision, the Tribunal weighed various factors, including the fact that the three-year exclusion period under PIC 4014 had elapsed prior to his visa application. The Tribunal also considered the potential negative impact on Mr. Pattar's business partner, his family, and the employees of their restaurant business. The Tribunal concluded that, having regard to all the relevant circumstances, it was not appropriate to cancel the visa. The Tribunal set aside the delegate's decision and substituted a decision not to cancel the visa.