Rana (Migration)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal reviewed a decision to cancel the Subclass 186 Employer Nomination Scheme visa held by the applicant, Ms. Rana. The dispute arose from the applicant's alleged failure to provide correct information in her previous and current visa applications, specifically regarding previous names, entry into Australia, and overstaying a previous visa.

The Tribunal was required to determine whether the applicant had failed to comply with the requirements of section 101(b) of the Migration Act 1958 by providing incorrect answers to questions on her visa applications. If non-compliance was found, the Tribunal then had to consider whether, in all the circumstances, the applicant's visa should be cancelled.

The Tribunal found that the applicant had indeed provided incorrect answers on her visa applications, admitting to breaches of section 101(b) of the Act. However, the Tribunal considered the applicant's circumstances, including her long-term residence in Australia with her husband and son, her community involvement, and her employment. Crucially, the Tribunal found that the best interests of her nine-year-old son, who had lived most of his life in Australia and had little connection to Nepal, weighed heavily against cancellation. Furthermore, the Tribunal noted the potential difficulties the applicant and her husband would face securing employment in Nepal, the risk of family separation, and the potential for violence and social stigma directed towards divorced women in Nepal, which would result in bleak prospects for the applicant if she were returned.

Having regard to all these circumstances, the Tribunal concluded that the visa should not be cancelled. The decision under review was set aside, and a substituted decision was made not to cancel the applicant's Subclass 186 visa.