Risteski (Migration)

This matter concerned an appeal by the applicant against the decision to cancel his Temporary Business Entry (Class UC) visa, Subclass 457 (Temporary Work (Skilled)). The dispute arose from allegations that the applicant had provided incorrect information and a bogus document in support of his visa application. The decision was made by the Tribunal, presided over by R. Skaros.

The primary legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the applicant had failed to comply with sections 101(b) (visa applications to be correct) and 103 (bogus documents not to be given) of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth), and if so, whether the visa cancellation decision should be affirmed. The Tribunal was required to determine if the notice issued under section 107 of the Act complied with statutory requirements and if the particulars of non-compliance set out in that notice were established.

The Tribunal's reasoning centred on the evidence presented regarding the applicant's claimed employment and qualifications. Integrity checks conducted by the Department revealed that the employment reference letter from Beton AD Skopje was not genuine, as confirmed by a representative of the company, and the letterhead was not authentic. Furthermore, a diploma for Bricklayer – Masonry Specialist was found to be unsubstantiated, with no record of its issuance in the university's database and an invalid registration number for the stated academic year. The Tribunal was satisfied that the notice issued under section 107 was valid and that the applicant had indeed provided incorrect information and a bogus document, constituting non-compliance with the Act.

Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the decision to cancel the applicant’s Subclass 457 visa.