Raguraman (Migration)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal considered the cancellation of a Subclass 189 (Skilled - Independent) visa granted to Ms. Suganiya Raguraman. The dispute arose from the Department of Home Affairs' suspicion that Ms. Raguraman had submitted a bogus document, specifically an Indian birth certificate, in support of her visa application. The Department's integrity checks found a Sri Lankan birth certificate to be genuine but could not confirm the genuineness of the Indian certificate, as a required court order for its late registration could not be located.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether Ms. Raguraman had failed to comply with section 103 of the *Migration Act 1958* by providing a bogus document, and if so, whether the Minister's power to cancel her visa under section 109 had been validly engaged. This required the Tribunal to determine if the notice of intention to consider cancellation issued under section 107 of the Act had complied with its statutory requirements and if the non-compliance particularised in that notice had been established.

The Tribunal reasoned that the cancellation power under section 109 of the Act is contingent on the Minister issuing a valid notice under section 107, which must provide particulars of the alleged non-compliance. In this instance, the Tribunal was satisfied that the notice issued to Ms. Raguraman complied with section 107. However, the Tribunal found that Ms. Raguraman had not committed the non-compliance as particularised in the notice. While the Department could not locate the court order for the late registration of the Indian birth certificate, Ms. Raguraman provided explanations and supporting statutory declarations from her parents and neighbours, asserting her birth in India. Crucially, she stated she only became aware of the Sri Lankan birth certificate after receiving the notice of intention to cancel. The Tribunal concluded that, based on the evidence and explanations provided, there was no non-compliance by Ms. Raguraman in the manner described in the section 107 notice.

Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the decision to cancel Ms. Raguraman's visa and substituted a decision not to cancel it. The Tribunal also noted that it had no jurisdiction with respect to the other applicant.