Pomsuwan (Migration) - [2025] ARTA 1623

Pomsuwan (Migration) [2025] ARTA 1623 (7 August 2025)
DECISION AND
REASONS FOR DECISION
Applicant:Mr Poch-Chong Pomsuwan
Respondent:  Minister for Immigration and Citizenship
Tribunal Number:  2524269

Tribunal:K. Raif
Place:Sydney
Date: 7 August 2025
Decision:The Tribunal affirms the decision to cancel the applicant’s Subclass 801 (Spouse) visa.

Statement made on 07 August 2025 at 9:05am
CATCHWORDS
MIGRATION – cancellation – Partner (Residence) (Class BS) visa – Subclass 801 (Spouse) – incorrect information provided in visa application and failure to notify change of circumstances – member of family unit adult child – secondary applicant to mother’s visa – relationship status, dependency and past addresses – sponsorship of own partner giving different addresses – bank statements and driver licences – employment history – claim that relationship started after visa granted – no probative evidence to show relationship started before then – emotional hardship if visa cancelled – best interests of young sister – discretion to cancel visa – deliberate breaches – information significant to assessment of application – decision under review affirmed
LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss 101, 107, 109(1)
Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth), r 2.41, Schedule 2, 820.321
CASES
MIAC v Khadgi (2010) 190 FCR 248
Salama v MIBP [2017] FCA 2
STATEMENT OF REASONS
Application for review

This is an application for review of a decision made by a delegate of the Minister for Home Affairs to cancel the applicant’s Subclass 801 (Spouse) visa under s 109(1) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (the Act).
The visa applicant is a national of Thailand, born in April 2001. He was granted the Spouse visa in April 2023. In February 2025 the applicant was issued with the Notice of Intention to Consider Cancellation (NOICC) as the delegate formed the view that he did not comply with s. 101 of the Act. The applicant provided his response to the NOICC and his visa was cancelled. The applicant seeks review of the delegate’s decision.
The issue in the present case is whether that ground for cancellation is made out, and if so, whether the visa should be cancelled.
The applicant appeared before the Tribunal on 24 July 2025 to give evidence and present arguments. The Tribunal also received oral evidence from the applicant’s partner and parents. The applicant was represented in relation to the review. For the following reasons, the Tribunal has concluded that the decision to cancel the applicant’s visa should be affirmed.
Relevant law
Section 109(1) of the Act allows the Minister to cancel a visa if the visa holder has failed to comply with ss 101, 102, 103, 104, 105 or 107(2) of the Act. Broadly speaking, these sections require non-citizens to provide correct information in their visa applications and passenger cards, not to provide bogus documents and to notify the Department of any incorrect information of which they become aware and of any relevant changes in circumstances.
The exercise of the cancellation power under s 109 of the Act is conditional on the Minister issuing a valid notice to the visa holder under s 107 of the Act, providing particulars of the alleged non-compliance. Where a notice is issued that does not comply with the requirements in s 107, the power to cancel the visa does not arise. In the present matter, the Tribunal is satisfied that the delegate had reached the necessary state of mind to engage s 107 and that the notice issued under s 107 complied with the statutory requirements.
Primary decision
The applicant provided to the Tribunal a copy of the primary decision record. It indicates that in April 2020 the applicant’s mother made an application for the Partner visa and the applicant was included in that application as a secondary applicant and member of the family unit. As part of that application, the applicant signed and provided form 47A in January 2023 in which the following answers were recorded:
a.In response to a question about his relationship status, the applicant stated that he was never married or in a de facto relationship.
b.In response to a question about his employment, the applicant stated that he had been employed at a massage business from October 2021 and had been working 15 hours a week.
c.In response to a question about his main source of income, the applicant referred to his mother Ms Khamphera and stated that his mother provided him with money and food and gave him $229 pw. The applicant stated that such support had been provided between September 2018 and May 2022.
d.In response to a question about any other sources of financial support, the applicant provided a statement from Ms Khamphera who claimed that she had been training the applicant to provide remedial massage at her shop and supported him with $229 of her funds.
e.The applicant gave his addresses as living in Thailand from birth until September 2017 and two addresses in Yagoona NSW between September 2017 and January 2023 (date the form was signed).
The applicant also included with his application a ‘letter of dependency’ dated 26 July 2022 in which his mother stated that
a.the applicant has been reliant on her for financial support to meet his basic needs for food, shelter and clothing and that such reliance on her was greater than on any other source.
b.the applicant was living with her and her partner and other children and that she and her partner cover all food and other household expenses. Ms Khamphera stated that in addition to providing food and shelter to the applicant, she covers the cost of his clothing.
c.the applicant’s total weekly expenses were about $229 per week.
d.Since turning 18, the applicant completed secondary schooling and could not find work due to Covid. He intends to study at TAFE but requires permanent residence.
e.Since October 2021 she has been informally training the applicant in her massage shop for about 15 hours a week.
f.The applicant has never been married or in a de facto relationship.
In April 2023 the delegate assessed the applicant as meeting the requirements for the grant of the Partner visa and both temporary and permanent visas were granted on 4 April 2023.
In September 2023 the applicant sponsored Ms Pathumkham for a Partner visa. In support of the sponsorship, the applicant provided the following information.
a.He and Ms Pathumkham first met in November 2020 and later became close. Their relationship developed and they moved to their current place in April 2023.
b.In May 2023 he asked Ms Pathumkham to marry him and she agreed and they made arrangements with the celebrant. They had been in a committed relationship since 10 June 2023 which is the date of their marriage.
c.His main source of income is his employment salary.
d.The applicant provided his residential addresses as
oThailand until September 2017,
otwo addresses in Yagoona between September 2017 and December 2020,
oSydney from December 2020 to October 2021
oMascot from October 2021 to April 2023
oNarwee from April 2023 to September 2023.
The delegate noted that this contradicted the information that was provided with the Partner application when the applicant claimed to have been living with his mother until 2023 while the subsequent information indicated he lived separately and independently from his mother since December 2020.
The delegate notes that PRISMS recorded Ms Pathumkham residential addresses as
a.Sydney (same address as given by the applicant on the sponsorship form) in May 2021, and
b.Mascot (same address as given by the applicant on the sponsorship form) from March 2022 to August 2022
The delegate noted that this indicated that the applicant did not live with his mother since December 2020 and, at least from May 2021, he had been living with Ms Pathumkham in Sydney, Mascot and Narwee.
The delegate found that the applicant gave incorrect answers
a.in relation to his past addresses,
b.on Form 47A and the letter of dependency dated 26 July 2022 when he claimed to be living with his mother and to be financially reliant on his mother for basic needs,
c.when claiming he was never married or in a de facto relationship. The delegate noted that the fact that the applicant and Ms Pathumkham had been living together since at least May 2021 contradicted his claim that they were friends and started living together after April 2023.
The delegate considered it highly unlikely that within two weeks of the applicant and Ms Pathumkham starting to live together, the applicant would propose and she would accept the proposal. The delegate considered it more likely that the applicant and Ms Pathumkham had been living together and had been committed to a relationship much earlier and at least since May 2021.
In his response to the NOICC the applicant denied the above information. The applicant denied living at addresses other than the Yagoona addresses. He stated that he was frequently going back and forth between locations and he believed for that reason that other addresses qualified as ‘residential addresses’ and gave those addresses in the sponsorship document. The applicant included a statement from Ms Pathumkham in which she denied living with the applicant and stated that while she lived at Sydney and Mascot, the applicant remained living with his parents until April 2023. The applicant’s mother and step-father also confirmed his residence in Yagoona.
The delegate did not accept these explanations, noting that in that case, the applicant’s claimed residential addresses would overlap, but instead he listed these as consecutive addresses on the sponsorship form where he had declared that he ceased living with his mother in December 2020 and started living at other addresses. The delegate also noted that the form specifically referred to permanent addresses, not addresses that were merely visited.
Summary of written evidence before the Tribunal
The applicant provided a number of documents to the Tribunal on 16 June 2025. These include copies of the applicant’s driver license with the Narwee address and the Yagoona address (he told the Tribunal he had no record when these addresses were changed). The applicant provided payslips from Action Workforce relating to his employment in September 2022 and a copy of his employment contract with DHL dated 9 October 2022 indicating the applicant commenced employment there in October 2022. The applicant provided his AFP police clearance certificate and a number of bank records which may be summarised as follows:
a.Commonwealth Bank statement from July to December 2020 showing transfers to and from the applicant’s mother.
b.Commonwealth Bank statement from January 2021 to June 2021 showing
i.a deposit in October marked as ‘rent’
ii.deposits and transfer in October marked as ‘bonds’
iii.a payment on 13 October marked as ‘bonds and rent’
iv.payments marked as ‘rent’ and payments made to what appears to be a real estate agency. These are made regularly in October, November and December 2021
c.Commonwealth bank statements for the period from July 2021, addressed at Yagoona. These show
i.Cash deposits at the city branches including World Square
ii.Multiple transfers from individuals. There are transfers from the applicant’s mother (for example, $4000 in September 2021) which the applicant then repaid a few days later.
iii.A transfer from Songkhwan Pathumkham made in October 2021 identified as ‘bonds and rent’.
iv.Several payments around October 2021 entitled ‘bonds’, ‘rent’ or ‘home’. There is a transfer from Ms Pathumkaham entitled ‘home’ and regular payments of $1160 to what appears to be a real estate marked as ‘rent’.
d.Commonwealth Bank statement record from July to December 2022 showing
i.regular rent deposits and payments
ii.transfers from Songkhwan Pathumkaham for rent payments
e.Commonwealth Bank statement records from January to June 2023 and from July 2023 to December 2023 addressed at Narwee address, showing regular rent payments
f.ANZ bank records for the period from February 2021 to November 2021. These are addressed to an address at Yagoona and show
i.wage payments from a Thai Massage business which are for various amounts and do not appear regularly.
ii.cash deposits, many of which were made at the city branches such as Chinatown, Broadway or World Square ATMs
iii.and transfers from other individuals, as well as the applicant’s mother.
iv.What appears to be a Centrelink payment of $750
g.ANZ Bank records for the period from December 2021 – February 2022 showing
i.multiple visa debit purchases made in Mascot and Botany, Sydney and Haymarket.
ii.Payments or grocery shopping at Woolworth Mascot. The statements do not show any purchases made in Yagoona
h.ANZ bank records from August 2022 which show
i.Regular wage payments from Action Workforce in August 2022, September 2022
ii.Grocery and alcohol purchases in Mascot. There are no purchases made in Yagoona.
iii.Deposits from the applicant’s mother
i.ANZ bank records from April 2022 showing
i.Deposits from the applicant’s mother
ii.Several deposits using Haymarket, Chinatown ATM
iii.Grocery purchases made around Haymarket and Mascot
j. ANZ bank records from February 2023 which show
i.salary payments from DSC made in February 2023
ii.transfers to Ms Pathumkham from February 2023 and several transfers from Ms Pathumkham made in February 2023, September 2022, October 2022, November 2022
iii.regular purchases for groceries (Woolworths), alcohol (BWS Liquor) and petrol made in Mascot around March 2023, August and September 2022
iv.salary payments from Action Workforce made in August 2022, October 2022, November 2022
In his statement dated 1 June 2025 the applicant states that his actual place of residence was at Yagoona but some of the bank statements show different addresses. The applicant states that the address in Sussex street was used for personal mail as he did not want his parents to know about his credit card application. The address at Mascot was listed ‘temporarily’ as he was assisting his then girlfriend with the living arrangements but he did not permanently reside at either of these addresses.
In his submission to the Tribunal of 17 July 2025 the applicant set out his background and immigration history, stating that his residential history was incorrectly recorded when he sponsored his wife for the visa. The applicant states that he was living with his mother during the relevant period and he states that the bank records confirm that. The applicant states that he used his girlfriend’s address to apply for a credit card as his mother would not approve. The applicant states that he was ‘temporarily assisting’ his girlfriend during Covid at a different address but he did not live there and he mistakenly believed he had to list addresses on the sponsorship form even if he only stayed there temporarily. The applicant notes that he responded to NOICC without any legal assistance.
The applicant states that his name was listed on the lease at the Church Ave property because she had difficulty securing a rental property in 2020 – 2021 due to her Student visa and the agent suggested that she should use her boyfriend, so the property was listed in his name and he made payments using his bank accounts for which he was reimbursed by his girlfriend. The applicant states that he did not reside there on a long term basis but occasionally stayed the night. The applicant provided statements from housemates of his partner confirming that he did not live in the house despite his name appearing on the various documents. The applicant provided a number of declarations, including from his parents and brother, confirming that he lived with his parents until April 2023 and, according to his brother, stayed ‘occasionally’ with his girlfriend. He states that his Commonwealth Bank statements from June 2020 to July 2022 show his mother’s addresses. (Given that his later bank statements show his partner’s addresses even though the applicant claims to have been living with his mother until 2023, it is unclear why the applicant considers the earlier bank records should be taken as evidence of his residence with his mother but not the later bank statements as evidence of his residence with his partner.) The applicant also states that his older driver licenses show his mother’s address and the more recent ones show the address where he lived with his wife, although he told the Tribunal there was no evidence of when he changed the addresses on his licenses.
With respect to the relationship, the applicant states that he ‘did not understand the delineation between a typical relationship… and a de facto relationship’ as there is no concept of de facto relationship in Thailand. The applicant states that he was dating his partner and as their affections deepened, they married on 10 June 2023.
Summary of oral evidence to the Tribunal
In relation to his employment, the applicant told the Tribunal that he was working for his mother’s business but from around July 2022 he was recommended a job at Action Workforce and he started working there about 20 hours a week on a casual basis. He had no regular hours and there were periods when he was not working. The applicant states that he was paid around $32 an hour. From October 2022 he became a full-time packer at DHL. He was paid over $1000 per week. He held that job on a full-time basis until December 2024. The applicant told the Tribunal that he stopped working at his mother’s business around July 2022 and has not returned to that business.
In relation to the form 47A, the applicant stated that he continued to live with his mother and was dependent on her but he had the opportunity to work and he wanted to take the burden off his mother. When questioned why his employment was not mentioned on the form, the applicant stated that he still relied on, and lived with, his mother and he did not realise that information had to be mentioned and he did not think he had to mention money that was only his pocket money. The applicant told the Tribunal that his mother stopped giving him money around March or April 2023 and from that time he was relying on his own income.
With respect to his relationship, the applicant stated that he met Ms Pathumkham in November 2020 and from December 2020 they decided to become ‘boyfriend and girlfriend’. The applicant stated that once his visa was granted, he wanted to be a family and they made plans for the marriage. The applicant stated that prior to his visa grant, he knew that he could not sponsor Ms Pathumkham for the visa so he waited until he was granted his visa. Once his visa was granted, and he knew he could sponsor, he proposed to Ms Pathumkham and made arrangements for the marriage.
The applicant told the Tribunal that he and Ms Pathumkham moved in together in April 2023. The applicant states that until that time he moved between his place and his girlfriend’s and they stayed at each other’s places a few nights a week. The applicant states that around March or April 2023 he spoke to a friend about marrying Ms Pathumkham but he did not propose to her until 8 May 2023.
The applicant stated that his partner’s lease was under his name because during Covid the real estate agents would not accept Student visas (the applicant confirmed that he held a Bridging visa at the time) and he also had the security of his mother’s house. The applicant stated that from October 2021 his and his partner’s names were on the lease agreement but he claims that was only because of the agents’ demands and not because he was living there. With respect to the transactions on his bank statements, the applicant stated that he worked in Mascot and there was no big supermarket open at night at Yagoona so he did his shopping at Mascot. The applicant also stated that he and his partner would be ‘hanging out’ together in the city and he would often pay, hence the payments were made in the city and not in Yagoona. The applicant stated there are no banks in or around Yagoona and no other businesses where he could make payments.

The applicant stated that he misunderstood the questions on the form when referring to his addresses. The applicant stated that when he was sponsoring his partner, he thought he should mention their residence together and he wanted to make the application stronger. (That evidence suggests that he was willing to provide different answers on the basis of what he believed would be beneficial to him.)
The applicant told the Tribunal that his partner was living in Mascot until April 2023. As her lease was due to end around 10 April 2023, they started discussing living together. The applicant states that once he was granted the visa, he knew that he could sponsor her and they decided to move in together and get on with the relationship.
The applicant’s step-father Mr Currey told the Tribunal that the applicant continued to live with them, at least four days a week. He said that the applicant’s relationship with his now partner was initially that of boyfriend / girlfriend but around January or February 2023 they were discussing marriage. The Tribunal is mindful that this contradicts the applicant’s and Ms Pathumkham’s evidence about the timing of that conversation. The applicant told the Tribunal that Mr Currey is forgetful or confused.
The applicant’s mother told the Tribunal that during 2022 the applicant was working in her business full time and he continued to work there in 2023. The Tribunal noted that this contradicts the applicant’s own evidence that he stopped working at his mother’s business in July 2022 and ‘did not return there’. Ms Khamphera then said that the applicant stopped doing massage work in 2022 but he continued to help in the business until early 2023 although he was not there full-time. Ms Khamphera said that she was not aware of her son’s full-time employment and filled in the forms without any professional assistance. (The Tribunal notes, however, that form 47A was signed by the applicant as well and he would have been well aware of his employment, even if his mother was not.) She also told the Tribunal that she did not know when the applicant discussed marriage with his wife and she only found out about their plans to marry when the paperwork was being prepared. Ms Khamphera stated that she left the applicant to himself and does not know all the information about him.
Ms Pathumkham told the Tribunal that the applicant proposed on 8 May 2023 and they made arrangements for marriage. They started living together in April 2023. With respect to the lease agreement, Ms Pathumkham said that they were making arrangements to sign the lease during Covid and she only held a Student visa while he had a better visa. (The Tribunal does not accept that evidence, noting that the applicant held a bridging visa at the time.) Ms Pathumkham states that she would spend weekends at the applicant’s home and during the week he would stay overnight at her place 1-2 days a week and spend 4-5 days a week there with friends.
Ms Pathumkham told the Tribunal that they had a ‘serious’ conversation about marriage after the applicant was granted the visa. When the Tribunal noted that Mr Currey gave different evidence, she said that although they may have discussed it earlier, it was not a serious conversation.
Other aspects of the oral evidence are set out below under the relevant headings.
Was there non-compliance as described in the s 107 notice?
The issue before the Tribunal is whether there was non-compliance in the way described in the s 107 notice, being the manner particularised in the notice, and if so, whether the visa should be cancelled. The non-compliance identified and particularised in the s 107 notice was non-compliance with s. 101 of the Act in three respects,
a.The applicant’s relationship status,
b.The applicant’s residential addresses, and
c.The applicant’s finances and dependence on his mother,
The Tribunal’s findings in relation to these issues are set out below.
Was there non-compliance with respect to relationship status
The applicant claims, essentially, that his relationship with his partner did not commence until after he was granted his permanent visa. Both he and Ms Pathumkham state the applicant proposed on 8 May 2023 and after that date they made arrangements to marry. The applicant states that although he has spent time with his girlfriend, he did not live there and there was no relationship between them. The Tribunal finds that evidence unpersuasive.
a.    Firstly, the Tribunal considers it highly significant that the bank records summarised above show that from at least early 2021 the applicant’s daily activities occurred at addresses other than at Yagoona where he claims to have been living with his mother. For example, everyday purchases were primarily made in or around Mascot and these include regular purchases of groceries and payments for food. He also used the ATMs around the city address where Ms Pathumkham was living, even though he claims he did not live there. Importantly, there is a notable absence of any recorded transactions taking place in Yagoona. The Tribunal does not accept the applicant’s explanation that there are no banks, ATMs, shops or other businesses in Yagoona and the Tribunal is of the view that if the applicant did spend several days a week at Yagoona as he claims, there would be some record of his financial transactions in that area. In the Tribunal’s view, the applicant’s bank records strongly suggest the applicant’s residence at the Mascot and city addresses and not merely his ‘visits’ at these addresses with primary residence at his parents’ home as he claims.
b.    The applicant states he did not live at Mascot but was ‘assisting’ his girlfriend during the pandemic. It is unclear why he would use the address as Mascot as his mailing address with the bank if he was not living there. The applicant claims he did not want his mother to know about his credit card but that does not explain why the bank records (rather than credit card statements) would be sent to a different address. The Tribunal is also mindful of the mother’s evidence that she was too busy working and did not know much about the applicant (for example, she claims, somewhat implausibly in the Tribunal’s view, that she did not know about his full-time employment despite living in the same household). The Tribunal thus does not accept that the applicant would use another address to hide his use of a credit card from his mother.
c.     The applicant’s evidence is that in 2020 – 2021 he used his own name to lease a property for his then girlfriend but did not live there. The Tribunal has been unpersuaded by the applicant’s explanations for why that occurred. The applicant claims she was having difficulty leasing a property in her own name as she was holding a Student visa at the time. However, the applicant himself was holding a Bridging visa and the Tribunal does not accept that it would have been easier for the applicant to lease a property in his own name as a holder of a Bridging visa than for his girlfriend who was holding a substantive visa. In the Tribunal’s view, the fact that the applicant’s name appears on a Lease agreement for the property where Ms Pathumkham resided, and the applicant’s evidence is that he had facilitated the payment of the bond, is a strong indication that they had commenced their cohabitation at the time.
d.    The applicant’s bank records show a degree of financial interdependence, with money transfers between the applicant and Ms Pathumkham. These occurred well before April 2023 when the applicant claims he has formed a commitment to the relationship. In the Tribunal’s view, the level of financial interdependence – which included the applicant being a guarantor (as he claims) for Ms Pathumkham’s lease - does not support the applicant’s claim that there was no commitment in their relationship prior to April 2023.
e.    Like the delegate, the Tribunal is unconvinced by the haste with which the parties claim to have formed the relationship after the visa grant. The applicant’s evidence is that once he was granted permanent residence, he knew that he would be able to sponsor his partner and at that time he decided to progress the relationship and the parties have hastily arranged marriage registration. In the Tribunal’s view, a much more likely scenario, and one that is consistent with the presented evidence concerning the living arrangements, social and financial interactions, is that the couple had formed a relationship earlier but only decided to register marriage after the applicant was granted the visa so as not to jeopardise his visa grant.
f.   For the reasons stated elsewhere the Tribunal has determined that the applicant has not provided truthful information about his employment in the visa application and, in particularly when submitting documents in January 2023. The Tribunal has formed the view that the applicant had deliberately withheld relevant information that was adverse to him and that reflects poorly on his credibility. In these circumstances, the Tribunal gives less weight to the applicant’s claims concerning his relationship development.
The Tribunal is of the view that evidence of the applicant’s financial circumstances transactions on the bank statements shows a degree of financial interdependence between him and Ms Pathumkham as there is evidence of transactions between them. For example, the applicant told the Tribunal that the $4000 showing on his account in September 2021 was for the bond payment for Ms Pathumkham. There are other transactions showing transfers from Ms Pathumkham. The applicant’s and Ms Pathumkham’s evidence is they were spending most of their time together and socialised together with their friends. There is some dispute about when they discussed marriage with the applicant and Ms Pathumkham claiming it was after the visa grant and with Mr Currey suggesting it was early 2023. The combination of factors – the persistent use by the applicant of the bank card in places other than his mother’s address in Yagoona and consistent with where his partner was living – his name on the partner’s lease agreement and lack of independent evidence of his residence at his mother’s home (the Tribunal gives limited weight to various statements from third parties as there may be a significant degree of self-interest) all strongly suggest that the applicant was primarily living with his partner and not with his mother and that the applicant’s relationship with Ms Pathumkham started well before they now claim.
Nevertheless, the applicant did not register marriage with Ms Pathumkham until June 2023. There is no evidence that he was engaged to be married with her prior to that date. As for the existence of a de facto relationship between them, while the Tribunal strongly suspects that the de facto relationship was in existence before the visa grant in April 2023, the Tribunal has decided that there is insufficient probative evidence to make a positive determination on that issue. That is, the Tribunal is of the view that the applicant and Ms Pathumkham had not been truthful in their representation of the relationship but the Tribunal cannot positively find that a de facto relationship, with all its indicia, was in existence by the time the last form / document was submitted by the applicant in support of his visa application that referred to his single status (noting that the NOICC does not refer to a breach of s. 104). The Tribunal does not determine that there was non-compliance with s. 101 in relation to the applicant’s relationship status.
Was there non-compliance with respect to residential addresses
The applicant claims that he had incorrectly stated his address history when sponsoring his partner for the visa and that the information in his own application is correct. In his own application on Form 47A, the applicant only referred to his mother’s addresses in Yagoona and no other addresses. However, there is no obvious reason, in the Tribunal’s view, to disregard the latter information – which is adverse to the applicant – and to give more weight to the information in his own visa application. In the Tribunal’s view, the applicant’s classification of the latter information as ‘incorrect’ is nothing more than an attempt to retain his visa.
The evidence of the applicant and Ms Pathumkham to the Tribunal is that prior to April 2023 the applicant had spent a few days a week at home and a few days a week with Ms Pathumkham at her home. Ms Pathumkham’s evidence is that during the week the applicant would stay at her home overnight 1-2 days a week and spend 4-5 days there socialising with friends while they spent the weekends at his home. This is consistent with the applicant’s own evidence when he told the Tribunal they moved between each other’s places and would spend a few nights a week at each other’s places.
The Tribunal notes that Part D of Form 47A required the applicant to list ‘all’ addresses where he had lived and to show all addresses in Australia for any period, including visits [emphasis added]. The fact that the question refers to ‘all’ addresses where the applicant may have lived or visited indicates the intention that the applicant was required to include every address even if he was not living there on a full-time basis. Given the evidence that he was regularly visiting Ms Pathumkham, spending at least a couple of nights and several days a week at her place (and, indeed, her evidence is that the applicant had spent more time at her address than at his parents’ home), the Tribunal is of the view that the broad requirement in Part D of Form 47A necessitated the disclosure of Ms Pathumkham’s residential addresses.
The applicant explained to the Tribunal that when he completed the sponsorship form for Ms Pathumkham, he mistakenly believed he had to mention all the addresses, including those he visited even if he had not live there. In the Tribunal’s view, that was the correct interpretation of what the visa form required. However, if that was the applicant’s interpretation of the question, it is unclear why he did not mention the same addresses in his own visa application.
It is not in dispute that when submitting form 47A, the applicant mentioned his parents’ addresses at Yagoona but failed to mention the addresses where he stayed, or visited, with Ms Pathumkham. The Tribunal has formed the view that the applicant’s residence with Ms Pathumkham for at least some days and nights a week, every week, for a number of years, can be classified as his residence there, as well as visits there. As the applicant has not disclosed ‘all addresses where he lived including visits’, the Tribunal finds that the applicant completed the application form in a way that incorrect answers were given or provided with respect to his address history in Australia. The Tribunal finds that this evidences the applicant’s non-compliance with s. 101 of the Act irrespective of any other instance of non-compliance.
Was there non-compliance with respect to financial dependence
As noted above, the applicant submitted Form 47A in January 2023. In that form, the applicant claimed that he was working in his mother’s massage business and identified his mother as the main source of income. The applicant claimed that he received $229 from his mother and, in response to a question about any ‘other’ source of financial support, the applicant included a statement from his mother Ms Khamphera who stated that she had been training the applicant in her shop and paying him $229.
The applicant’s bank records show that the applicant commenced employment, and received a salary, at Action Workforce no later than September 2022 and at DHL no later than October 2022. There is no mention of these jobs in Form 47A. The Tribunal is mindful that question 26 of the form expressly required the applicant to give details of the applicant’s main source of support and details of any ‘other’ sources of financial support. These were open questions (as opposed to limited response options of a drop-down menu as discussed in Salama v MIBP [2017] FCA 2) and the applicant had every opportunity to refer to his employment at Acton Workforce and DHL in response to that question or in Part E of the form. Similarly, the applicant was asked about his employment at Questions 24 and 25 but failed to disclose his two jobs at Action Workforce and DHL. Instead, the applicant’s evidence on Form 47A was that his only source of income was his mother.
The applicant’s evidence to the Tribunal is that he either stopped working at his mother’s business around July 2022 and ‘did not return there’ since, or that he was still helping his mother in her business when needed but not regularly, until early 2023. The applicant does not suggest that he continued to be regularly employed at his mother’s business, for 15 hours a week, once he commenced full-time employment at DHL. The Tribunal finds that the reference to the 15 hour per week employment at his mother’s business on Form 47A constituted an incorrect answer. In his submission to the Tribunal dated 5 August 2025 the applicant acknowledged that the answers on Form 47A were incorrect in relation to his employment.
The Tribunal finds that by referring to his 15 hour a week employment at his mother’s business and by failing to mention his employment at Action Workforce and DHL, the applicant completed the application form 47A in a way that incorrect answers were given or provided. The answers were incorrect when the form was given or provided in January 2023. The Tribunal finds that this evidences the applicant’s non-compliance with s. 101 of the Act irrespective of any other instance of non-compliance.
For these reasons, the Tribunal finds that there was non-compliance with s 101 by the applicant in the way described in the s 107 notice.
Should the visa be cancelled?
As the Tribunal has decided that there was non-compliance in the way described in the notice given to the applicant under s 107 of the Act, it is necessary to consider whether the visa should be cancelled pursuant to s 109(1). Cancellation in this context is discretionary, as there are no mandatory cancellation circumstances prescribed under s 109(2).
In exercising this power, the Tribunal must consider the applicant’s response (if any) to the s 107 notice about the non-compliance, and have regard to any prescribed circumstances: s 109(1)(b) and (c). The prescribed circumstances are set out in reg 2.41 of the Regulations. They are:
The correct information
The correct information is that the applicant held a full-time job before he was granted the visa and his income from his employment was far greater than his income from his mother. The correct information also is that the applicant had lived at multiple addresses that he did not disclose on the application form.
The content of the genuine document (if any)
This is not relevant in the present case.
Whether the decision to grant a visa or immigration clear the visa holder was based, wholly or partly, on incorrect information or a bogus document
It was a requirement for the grant of the Subclass 820 visa (contained in cl. 820.321 that the applicant must have been a member of the family unit, or be dependent on his mother.
The applicant told the Tribunal that he was still receiving money from his mother who paid for his basic needs and he may have still been dependent on her despite his employment. The applicant submits that his mother provided other forms of support in addition to the cash payments, including rent, and his income from employment would not have been sufficient to meet his basic needs. However, the fact that the applicant had another source of income, and that income was substantially higher than the income from his mother, would have been highly relevant to the assessment of the applicant’s dependence and his ability to meet the requirements of cl. 820.321. The issue before the Tribunal is to whether the decision would have been different if the correct information was known, but whether it was merely based on incorrect information.

Similarly, information about the applicant’s residential addresses would have been highly relevant in determining the applicant’s dependence on his mother as it would have been relevant in assessing whether the applicant was reliant on his mother for shelter (which is part of the definition of dependence). The disclosure of different residential addresses may have necessitated an assessment of the applicant’s relationship with Ms Pathumkham and of his marital status.
The Tribunal finds that the decision to grant the visa was based, in part but to a considerable extent, on incorrect information.
The circumstances in which the non-compliance occurred
The applicant claims that he did not try to deliberately conceal any information from the Department or the Tribunal. He maintains that he lived with his parents until April 2023 and had simply misinterpreted the question on the sponsorship form about his residence when sponsoring his partner. The applicant refers to various statements in support of his claims and he states that this is the only inconsistency between his answers in his mother’s application and when sponsoring his wife. The applicant states that he answered the sponsorship forms incorrectly due to lack of legal guidance. This is also the evidence of the applicant’s mother who told the Tribunal she did not get any professional advice when completing the forms and that her partner helped her with the forms.
The Tribunal finds that evidence problematic. Given that form 47A required the applicant to list ‘all’ addresses in Australia, including addresses where he had visited, it is unclear why the applicant would not refer to the addresses where, even on his own evidence, he was spending a considerable amount of time. The Tribunal notes that the questions about residence and employment are not complex. They do not involve difficult legal constructs. It is difficult to see how the applicant (or his mother) were able to misinterpret or misunderstand questions requiring the applicant to list his present and past employment and all his addresses in Australia, particularly when the applicant’s evidence is that he believed the form required him to declare all his addresses when sponsoring his partner.
The applicant concedes that he had not mentioned his employment in Form 47A completed in 2023. The applicant told the Tribunal that at the time he continued to live with his mother and was reliant on her and did not think he had to mention his ‘pocket money’. In his submission of 5 August 2025 the applicant states that he did not deliberately conceal information about his employment but there was miscommunication and misunderstanding between the parties involved. The applicant states that his mother’s application was not prepared by a professional and his mother as not aware that he had taken on full-time employment with DHL. With respect to his employment at his mother’s business, the applicant claims in his post-hearing written submission that the context of his employment is relevant. The applicant notes that the business was a family business and he was helping his mother out, which is not uncommon. He was not initially not employed elsewhere and when he did not have school commitment, he would help his mother in her business.
The Tribunal is mindful that the applicant’s oral evidence to the Tribunal is that he had ceased working at his mother’s business in mid-2022 and well before January 2023 when the form was completed. By that time he had a full-time job elsewhere and was earning over $1000 which was substantially higher than what he claimed to have been earning at his mother’s business. While the Tribunal accepts that the applicant may have helped his mother in the family business when he did not have other commitments, the Tribunal does not accept that by the time the form was completed and submitted, he had a full-time job elsewhere and would have had very little capacity to work at his mother’s business. There is certainly no suggestion that he worked at his mother’s business 15 hours a week as he claimed on the form. To now state that he was only helping his mother in the business contradicts the information on Form 47A that he was working there for 15 hours a week and had no other employment.
The Tribunal also does not accept that the applicant did not consider his employment and income as relevant to his visa application, given that his reliance on his mother was central to his visa eligibility. The Tribunal also notes that question 26 on form 47A expressly refers to ‘other sources of financial support’ so even if the applicant did not believe his employment was relevant (a claim the Tribunal does not accept), he was instructed by that question to mention that income. In the Tribunal’s view, his failure to do so was deliberate.
The Tribunal also notes that Question 25 of Form 47A relates to the applicant’s employment. The applicant stated that from October 2021 he was employed at the massage business but he makes no mention of any other employment (even though his evidence to the Tribunal is that by January 2023 he was no longer working regularly at the massage business but was working full-time at DHL). The fact that the applicant continued to refer to his employment at the massage business but did not mention his employment at Action Workforce or DHL either in response to question 25 (which referred to his current employment) or question 24 (which required the applicant to list his previous employment) supports the Tribunal’s view that the applicant had deliberately withheld information about his employment so as not to jeopardise the grant of the visa.
The Tribunal does not accept that the provision of incorrect answers was due to any misunderstanding or lack of legal or professional guidance. The Tribunal has formed the view that the applicant had deliberately withheld information about his employment (and had misleadingly claimed that his sole employment was at his mother’s business), and about his residence at places other than his mother’s home because he knew such information could be adverse to his visa application. The Tribunal has formed the view that the breach was deliberate.
The present circumstances of the visa holder
In his submission to the Tribunal of 17 July 2025 the applicant states that he has few ties in his home country, with his immediate family members living in Australia. In his subsequent evidence the applicant stated that he has few family members in Thailand, including his grandmother and father with whom he has limited contact. He told the Tribunal that he is not close to his father and has not spoken to him for months. The Tribunal accepts that evidence.
The applicant states in his written submission that he does not have post-secondary qualifications and little work experience and he claims he may not find employment in Thailand. In oral evidence the applicant also stated that he left his home country eight years ago and before he had acquired any qualifications. He states he has nothing there and only his elderly grandmother to rely on. The applicant concedes that he could look for a job in Thailand but states that it might take some time and he has no money to start his own business.
To the extent the applicant claims he could not find employment in Thailand, she Tribunal finds such claims unpersuasive in the absence of any supporting evidence. It is not sufficient to state that the applicant has no experience or no qualification and therefore he will not find employment. The Tribunal has not been provided with adequate evidence about the employment opportunities in his home country, what type of employment the applicant may seek and what qualification or experience are required for such employment. The Tribunal has not been provided with any evidence that the applicant has sought employment and has been denied employment in his home country. A mere assertion without any probative evidence is not helpful and does not assist the Tribunal.
The applicant states that in 2023 and 2024 he visited Thailand to deal with the conscription requirement and he has completed his army service with no ongoing obligations.
The applicant states that he wants to live with his wife in Australia. The applicant refers to his multiple bank accounts and other evidence of settlement, demonstrating his desire to live in Australia. The Tribunal accepts that the applicant prefers to live in Australia. In the Tribunal’s view, that is not a strong basis for setting aside the cancellation of his visa.
The applicant states that if his visa is cancelled, he would be separated from his wife until her visa expires. He told the Tribunal that his wife holds a Bridging visa on the basis of the Partner visa application and he requested that there would be no decision made on her application until his visa issue is resolved. The Tribunal acknowledges that if the applicant cannot act as a sponsor, his wife’s Partner application may not be successful. There is no evidence to indicate the that she holds any other visa that would enable her to remain in Australia.
The applicant states that he would also be separated from his family members in Australia who provide him with emotional support and he refers to the friendships he has formed in Australia. The applicant states that he has been an instrumental part in his sister’s childhood and helped take care of her. The Tribunal accepts that if the applicant was to leave Australia as a result of his visa being cancelled, he may be separated from his family members in Australia. The applicant states that he has a close connection to his family in Australia and his loss from their lives would be a ‘devastating consequence’ of the visa cancellation and would cause significant emotional turmoil and hardship. The Tribunal is mindful that these broad statements are entirely unsupported by probative evidence (for example, psychological reports or evidence of health professionals). It is not sufficient to state that ‘emotional turmoil’ or hardship would ensue without any probative evidence to support such a claim.
The Tribunal is also of the view that emotional support can continue to be provided and received even where people do not live in the same country. It is not uncommon for emotional support to be provided by people residing in different countries and the applicant has not indicated why that could not occur in this case. That is, while the Tribunal accepts that the quality of the applicant’s interactions with his family may be different, the Tribunal does not consider that any emotional support between the applicant and his family and friends in Australia need to cease if he was to leave Australia.
The applicant refers to having experienced a high degree of stress and anxiety and he refers to emotional upheaval due to the cancellation of the visa. The applicant has provided to the Tribunal a psychological assessment by Mr Dadgostar dated 16 July 2025. When questioned why the applicant saw the psychologist shortly before the Tribunal hearing, the applicant said that it was suggested to him that it might be better for his visa. The applicant told the Tribunal that he did not see the psychologist again after the report was written but he might see him again. To date, the applicant presented no evidence of having made any arrangements to seek the psychologist’s help (or help from any other health professional).
The applicant’s evidence, and the absence of any further engagement with the health professionals once the report was prepared, suggest that the sole reason the applicant saw Mr Dadgostar is because he believed it would support his visa process. In these circumstances, any self-reported symptoms are, in the Tribunal’s view, unreliable. Nevertheless, the Tribunal accepts the professional opinions expressed in that report.
The applicant states in his written submission that he had lost his job due to the visa cancellation and was forced to work additional long hours. The applicant told the Tribunal, in relation to his employment, that from January he obtained a new job at the airport. He was not able to work when he did not have permission to work and he has since returned to his job on a part-time basis and another, lower level job. The applicant told the Tribunal that if his visa was not cancelled, he would have had the opportunity to get the higher level full-time position but it has now been filled up by another person and he no longer has the opportunity to fill that position even if his visa is reinstated.
The applicant refers to the length of his residence in Australia, since September 2018, and his connection to the Australian community. The applicant states that he would face ‘significant hardship’ he was to uproot his life and return to Thailand.
The Tribunal has found some of the applicant’s claims to be exaggerated and many of his claims to be unsupported by probative evidence. Nevertheless, the Tribunal accepts that the applicant has been living in Australia for a number of years and that he travelled to Australia as a minor and completed his education here. The Tribunal accepts that the applicant has strong ties in this country and that his immediate family predominantly resides in Australia. The Tribunal accepts that it may take time for the applicant to find employment in Thailand and that he has severed his ties with that country. That is, the Tribunal accepts that considerable hardship would be caused to the applicant and his family if he is to leave Australia as a result of his visa being cancelled.
The subsequent behaviour of the visa holder concerning his or her obligations under Subdivision C of Division 3 of Part 2 of the Act
There is no adverse information concerning the applicant’s obligations under the Act. The Tribunal accepts the applicant’s submission of 5 August 2025 in which he states that no adverse finding should be made from the information in his response to the NOICC and his evidence to the Tribunal.
Any other instances of non-compliance by the visa holder known to the Minister
The applicant’s bank records show that the applicant commenced employment, and received a salary, at Action Workforce no later than September 2022 and at DHL no later than October 2022. As noted above, the applicant submitted a ‘letter of dependence’ dated 26 July 2022 in which he referred to being dependent on his mother and made no mention of any other source of income. The Tribunal finds that when the applicant commenced employment elsewhere in late 2022, the answers he gave on the application form (including the July 2022 statement) became incorrect. However, there is no evidence that the applicant had informed the Department, in writing, of the changes in his circumstances prior to the grant of the visa in April 2023.
The applicant told the Tribunal that he did not know he had to inform of the changes in his circumstances. However, the application form, under the heading ‘Declarations’ does inform visa applicants of the obligation to inform the Department in writing immediately as they become aware of a change in circumstances (including change of address). Further, it is the Tribunal’s view that any lack of knowledge of the law does not excuse non-compliance with it.
The Tribunal finds that the applicant failed to comply with s. 104 of the Act. The Tribunal considers that breach to be significant, as the applicant’s employment would have been highly relevant to the assessment of his dependence on his mother.
The time that has elapsed since the non-compliance
Form 47A was submitted in January 2023 and in that document the applicant referred to his sole income being from his mother. About two and a half years passed since that non-compliance which, in the Tribunal’s view, that is not a significant period.
Any breaches of the law since the non-compliance and the seriousness of those breaches
There are no known breaches of the law.
Any contribution made by the holder to the community.
The applicant refers to having made donations to charities and he told the Tribunal he sometimes gives money to homeless and the street performers. Although the applicant has not presented any evidence of such contributions, the Tribunal is prepared to accept that the applicant has made some contribution to the community.
While these factors must be considered, they do not represent an exhaustive statement of the circumstances that might properly be considered to be relevant in any given case: MIAC v Khadgi (2010) 190 FCR 248. The Tribunal may also have regard to lawful government policy. The relevant policy is set out in the Department’s Procedural Advice Manual) PAM3 ‘General visa cancellation powers’, which refers to matters such as the consequences of cancelling the visa, international obligations and any other relevant matters.
Whether there would be consequential cancellations under s 140.
There are no persons whose visa may be subject to consequential cancellation.
If there are children whose interests would be affected by cancellation, or consequential cancellation, decision-makers should consider the best interests of those children as a primary consideration when deciding whether to cancel the visa.
The applicant told the Tribunal that his sister is 6 years old and they are close, speaking to each other about weekly and they see each other every 2-3 weeks. The evidence is that he looked after his sister when their mother was busy and they have a close connection. The applicant states that his sister would be emotionally affected if he is not near. The applicant states that if he is not in Australia, they can maintain phone contact but would not be able to see each other in person and he wants to continue to be present for her and support his sister. In his submission of 5 August 2025 the applicant provided a number of photographs with his sister and he also refers to his close relationship with his sister who, the applicant claims, has always had the love and support of her brother. The applicant states that he has lived in the same household as his sister for the first four years of her life, and became particularly close during the pandemic. The applicant states that if he was to leave Australia, his sister would be separated from one of the key adults in her life.
Despite the inexplicably late submission of that evidence, the Tribunal accepts that there is a close relationship between the applicant and his sister. While the Tribunal notes that they have been able to maintain that relationship despite the applicant moving out of the family home and the fact that the applicant will be able to maintain phone contact with his sister irrespective of his country of residence, and despite the applicant and his sister now having limited contact (weekly phone contact and personal contact once every 2-3 weeks on his own evidence), the Tribunal accepts that there would be a far more limited opportunity for personal interactions if the applicant was to leave Australia as a result of his visa being cancelled.
The applicant claims that his removal from Australia would have a ‘strong psychological impact’ on his sister. The Tribunal is mindful that this claim is entirely unsupported by probative evidence such as evidence from health professionals or educational professionals or any other evidence that offers a meaningful assessment of the child’s circumstances and the impact of separation with the applicant. The applicant refers in his submission of 5 August 2025 to public literature but it does not relate to the specific circumstances of the applicant and his sister.
Nevertheless the Tribunal is prepared to accept that the applicant has a close relationship with his sister and that their ability to see each other in person and for the applicant to provide his sister with practical and other support would be non-existent if the applicant was to reside outside of Australia. The Tribunal accepts that it is in the best interests of the child that the applicant’s visa is not cancelled. The Tribunal acknowledges that this is a primary consideration.
Whether the cancellation would lead to the person's removal in breach of Australia's non-refoulement or family unity obligations.

The applicant told the Tribunal that he has been in Australia for eight years and has no friends in Thailand and would be by himself and he would have no one to socialise with in Thailand. (The applicant concedes that his partner would travel with him to Thailand and his wife’s parents and siblings are in Thailand, so the applicant would not be on his own and might not necessarily be socially isolated.) The applicant states that there are gangs where he lived and if he says something wrong, he might be threatened but he states that nothing happened to him in the past.
The Tribunal found the applicant’s claims to be very vague. The applicant’s representative confirmed that there is no claim that Australia’s non-refoulement obligations are owed in this case. On the limited evidence before it, the Tribunal does not consider that Australia’s non-refoulement obligations arise.
The applicant’s parents and siblings remain in Australia. The applicant’s partner is in Australia but does not hold a substantive visa and the applicant’s evidence is that she would accompany him to Thailand. In his submission of 5 August 2025 the applicant refers to the family in Australia (mother, step-father and siblings) and the hardship that his departure would cause to his family. The Tribunal accepts that if the applicant was to leave Australia, he would be separated from these family members (although not from his partner who is also part of the applicant’s family). As noted above, the Tribunal accepts that such separation may cause hardship to the applicant‘s family in Australia. The Tribunal is mindful that the applicant may have the option of seeking other Australian visas in the future to return to Australia and be reunited with his family, although the Tribunal accepts that any determination as to the applicant’s future visa eligibility is speculative.
Given the fact that the applicant will not be separated from his partner and is not permanently excluded from Australia where the rest of his family live, the Tribunal does not consider that the principles of family unity would be breached by the cancellation.
Whether there are mandatory legal consequences, such as whether the person would become unlawful and liable to detention and removal, whether detention is a likely consequence of the cancellation decision and if so, for how long, and whether there are provisions in the Act which prevent the person from making a valid application for any visa without the Minister personally intervening.
If the applicant’s visa is cancelled, and if he is not granted another visa, the applicant will become an unlawful non-citizen and may be detained and removed from Australia. There is no suggestion that the applicant will be detained indefinitely. The applicant will have limited options of seeking another visa in Australia due to the operation of s 48 and he may be subject to an exclusion period in PIC 4013 in relation to future visa applications. The applicant will also be unable to act as a sponsor for others, such as his partner.
Any other relevant matters (including the degree of hardship that may be caused to the visa holder and any family members).
The applicant’s claims concerning the hardship that he and his family in Australia would experience as a result of his departure from Australia are addressed above.
The applicant states that his family, including his mother and step-father and two siblings with whom he is close, are all in Australia. He states that he does not want to leave his family, particularly his mother who has ‘been through a lot’. The applicant states that he wants to continue to support his mother emotionally and physically. As noted above, the Tribunal is of the view that emotional support can be provided irrespective of the applicant’s place of residence and as for physical / practical support, there is little evidence as to whether any such support is available from other sources and little probative evidence to suggest his mother would experience hardship in the absence of such support.
The Tribunal accepts that the applicant’s immediate family are in Australia and the Tribunal also accepts that the applicant would be separated from his immediate family if he was to leave Australia. The Tribunal accepts that this may cause hardship to the applicant and his family.
In his submission of 6 August 2025 the applicant states that he came to Australia as a young adult, has completed his schooling and settled her with his family and has integrated into the Australian society. The Tribunal accepts that the applicant has been living in Australia for about 8 years and came to Australia as a minor. The Tribunal accepts that he has strong family , social, employment and other ties in this country and that these might be affected if he was to leave Australia. The Tribunal accepts that this would cause hardship to the applicant and others. The Tribunal also accepts the evidence of Mr Dadgostar about the impact of the visa issues on the applicant and the Tribunal is prepared to accept that psychosocial (as well as other) hardship could be caused to the applicant and his family in Australia if the visa is cancelled.

100. The applicant states that despite living in Thailand in the past, he was a minor with no responsibilities that he has now. The applicant states that his residence in Australia has been ‘the breeding ground for his development into adulthood’ and return to Thailand would mean a complete upheaval in his adult life. The applicant submits that he is not familiar with the Thai work environment and culture, has no ties or connections that may impede his earning capacity, and has no capital or experience. He has no family and no meaningful family support in Thailand. The Tribunal accepts the applicant’s evidence and accepts that considerable hardship would be caused to the applicant if he was to return to Thailand.
101. The applicant states that because he could not work once his visa was cancelled, he could not pay for accommodation and had to postpone personal loan repayments, delaying the final repayments. The applicant states that his life plans (buying a car, a house and traveling) had been denied as he had to use his savings to pay his legal fees. The Tribunal accepts that some financial and other hardship had been caused by the cancellation.
102. The Tribunal has considered the totality of the applicant’s circumstances. The Tribunal has determined that the applicant had not complied with s. 101 and that there are grounds for cancelling his visa.
103. The Tribunal considers that there are strong reasons why the visa should not be cancelled. Significantly, the Tribunal accepts that the applicant and his family members will experience hardship if the applicant’s visa is cancelled and if he has to leave the country as a result. The applicant has significant family, employment, social and other ties in Australia where he has lived for about eight years and the Tribunal accepts that he has limited (at best) ties and supports in Thailand. The applicant’s departure from Australia would lead to his loss of employment and separation from his parents and siblings. He would have to ‘start afresh’ in his home country and is likely to experience hardship, at least initially, when re-establishing himself in Thailand. The Tribunal accepts that these matters would cause significant hardship to the applicant and his family. The Tribunal finds that the applicant’s present circumstances and the hardship that would be caused by the cancellation weigh very heavily against the cancellation.
104. The Tribunal gives some weight to the applicant’s contribution to the community, although in the absence of any supporting evidence, this consideration is given limited weight.
105. The Tribunal accepts that it would be in the best interests of the applicant’s young sister to maintain a relationship with the applicant and that it is in the best interests of the child that the visa not be cancelled. The Tribunal gives this strong weight against the cancellation and acknowledge that this is a primary consideration. It is not a determinative one.
106. Several other considerations are neutral, such as the applicant’s conduct with respect to his obligations under the Act and Australia’s non-refoulement obligations. The Tribunal has found that not a significant period of time has passed since the non-compliance.
107. While there are strong reasons why the visa should not be cancelled, the Tribunal also notes the following considerations that, in the Tribunal’s view, weigh in favour of the cancellation.
108. First, it is the fact that the decision to grant the visa was based on incorrect information. In this case, the incorrect information was highly significant to the assessment of the applicant’s ability to meet the visa criteria. The applicant was seeking a visa as a dependent child and could not have met visa criteria for any other reason. An assessment of his dependence on his mother was thus central to the determination that the applicant was entitled to the grant of the visa. Yet, the applicant withheld crucial information about his employment and income, preventing the decision-maker from being able to conduct the assessment on the basis of complete and truthful information. The applicant also failed to list all the addresses where he lived in Australia, preventing an assessment of his relationship status and an assessment of his reliance on his mother for shelter, which is part of the dependence criteria.
109. Secondly, the Tribunal has formed the view that there was another – and significant – non-compliance with s. 104 of the Act as the applicant’s circumstances had changed once he obtained employment so that certain answers that were provided in the initial application made in 2020 and in the letter of dependency produced in July 2022, became incorrect. The applicant failed to inform the Department in writing of these changes.
110. Thirdly, and significantly, the Tribunal has rejected the applicant’s claim that the non-compliance was due to a genuine misunderstanding. The Tribunal has formed the view that the non-compliance was deliberate as the applicant sought to withhold information that he must have recognised would be adverse to him.
111. In the circumstances of this case, and having regard to the significance of the incorrect answers and their potential to change (whether or not they would have changed) the outcome of the visa eligibility assessment, the Tribunal has decided to give the greatest weight to the fact that the decision was based on incorrect information and to the circumstances of non-compliance. In the Tribunal’s view, these factors are in favour of the visa cancellation and outweigh other considerations.
112. The Tribunal has decided that there was non-compliance by the applicant in the way described in the notice given under s 107 of the Act. Further, having regard to all the relevant circumstances, as discussed above, the Tribunal concludes that the visa should be cancelled.
DECISION
113. The Tribunal affirms the decision to cancel the applicant’s Subclass 801 (Spouse) visa.
Date(s) of hearing  24 July 2025
Representative for the Applicant:           Ms Maija Bronwen Morris