Rainsford (Migration)

This matter concerned an application for review of a decision to cancel the applicant's Subclass 417 (Working Holiday) visa. The applicant had provided incorrect answers in an extension application, failing to disclose specified work in a regional area for three months. The decision under review was made by a delegate of the Minister, and the applicant did not appear at the Tribunal hearing.

The primary legal issues before the Tribunal were whether there had been non-compliance with the provisions of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth) as particularised in the notice issued under section 107, and if so, whether the applicant's visa should be cancelled. The Tribunal was required to consider the applicant's response to the section 107 notice and any prescribed circumstances relevant to the exercise of the discretion to cancel the visa.

The Tribunal found that the section 107 notice complied with statutory requirements and that the applicant had failed to provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate compliance with section 109 of the Act. Despite being afforded opportunities to respond to the alleged non-compliance and to argue for the waiver of cancellation, the applicant did not do so, including by failing to attend the Tribunal hearing. The Tribunal concluded that the cancellation of the visa was discretionary under section 109(1) and, having regard to all relevant circumstances, including the applicant's lack of engagement, the discretion to cancel the visa was exercised.

The Tribunal affirmed the decision to cancel the applicant's Subclass 417 (Working Holiday) visa.