Pritchard (Migration)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (Cth) considered an appeal by Ms Pritchard against the cancellation of her Working Holiday (Temporary) (Class TZ) visa, Subclass 417. The dispute arose from Ms Pritchard providing incorrect information in her second extension application regarding specified work undertaken in a regional area. While Ms Pritchard acknowledged non-compliance, she argued that certain work in Adelaide indirectly benefited regional areas and that COVID-19 restrictions impacted her ability to complete the required work. She also raised concerns about her partner's sponsored visa application and her own future eligibility for a visa.

The Tribunal was required to determine whether Ms Pritchard had failed to comply with section 101 of the Migration Act 1958, which mandates the provision of correct information in visa applications. Specifically, the Tribunal had to assess whether her answers regarding completing at least six months of specified work while holding the second Working Holiday visa, or a bridging visa granted on that basis, were correct. The Tribunal also had to consider whether the work undertaken for Lifeblood in Adelaide constituted "specified work" as defined by the relevant legislative instrument and, if non-compliance was found, whether the discretion to cancel the visa should be exercised.

The Tribunal found that Ms Pritchard had indeed provided incorrect answers in her visa application, as she had not completed the required six months of specified work. The Tribunal determined that her employment at Lifeblood in Adelaide, which involved contacting blood donors and managing enquiries, did not meet the definition of bushfire relief work under the Migration (LIN 20/103 Subclass 417 (Working Holiday) Visa – Regional Australia and Specified Work) Instrument 2020, despite an indirect benefit to people affected by bushfires. The Tribunal was satisfied that a valid notice under section 107 of the Act had been issued, and that the delegate had reached the necessary state of mind to engage the cancellation power under section 109.

The Tribunal affirmed the decision to cancel Ms Pritchard's visa. The Tribunal concluded that the non-compliance identified in the section 107 notice was established, and that the visa should be cancelled, having had regard to all relevant circumstances.