Ritika (Migration) - [2025] ARTA 1626

RITIKA (MIGRATION) [2025] ARTA 1626 (1 AUGUST 2025)
DECISION AND
REASONS FOR DECISION
Applicant:Ms Ritika
Respondent:  Minister for Immigration and Citizenship
Tribunal Number:  2521656

Tribunal:Senior Member K. Raif
Place:Sydney
Date: 1 August 2025
Decision:The Tribunal affirms the decision to cancel the applicant’s Subclass 485 (Temporary Graduate) visa.

Statement made on 01 August 2025 at 9:25am
CATCHWORDS
MIGRATION – cancellation – Skilled (Provisional) (Class VC) visa – Subclass 485 (Temporary Graduate) – incorrect information and bogus documents provided with application – masters qualification, letter of completion and academic transcript – discretion to cancel visa – claims of family violence and that information and documents were provided by husband – husband included in visa application – no evidence of family violence provided, or approach to police or department – relationship now ceased, with ex-partner and child living in home country – vague and unsupported claims – applicant complicit in provision of information and documents – other non-compliance in relation to student visa and second skilled visa applications – mandatory legal consequences and degree of hardship – decision under review affirmed
LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss 101, 103, 104, 107, 109(1)
Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth), r 2.41, Schedule 2, cl 485.221
CASE
MIAC v Khadgi (2010) 190 FCR 248

STATEMENT OF REASONS
Application for review

This is an application for review of a decision made by a delegate of the Minister for Home Affairs to cancel the applicant’s Subclass 485 (Temporary Graduate) visa under s 109(1) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (the Act).
The applicant is a national of India, born in November 1993. She was granted the Skilled visa in March 2023. In February 2025 the applicant was issued with the Notice of Intention to Consider Cancellation (NOICC) as the delegate formed the view that the applicant did not comply with ss. 101 and 103 of the Act. The applicant provided her response to the NOICC and the visa was cancelled on 31 March 2025. The applicant seeks review of the delegate’s decision.
The issue in the present case is whether the ground for cancellation is made out, and if so, whether the visa should be cancelled.
The applicant appeared before the Tribunal on 31 July 2025 to give evidence and present arguments. For the following reasons, the Tribunal has concluded that the decision to cancel the applicant’s visa should be affirmed.
Relevant law
Section 109(1) of the Act allows the Minister to cancel a visa if the visa holder has failed to comply with ss 101, 102, 103, 104, 105 or 107(2) of the Act. Broadly speaking, these sections require non-citizens to provide correct information in their visa applications and passenger cards, not to provide bogus documents and to notify the Department of any incorrect information of which they become aware and of any relevant changes in circumstances.
The exercise of the cancellation power under s 109 of the Act is conditional on the Minister issuing a valid notice to the visa holder under s 107 of the Act, providing particulars of the alleged non-compliance. Where a notice is issued that does not comply with the requirements in s 107, the power to cancel the visa does not arise.
In the present matter, the Tribunal is satisfied that the delegate had reached the necessary state of mind to engage s 107 and that the notice issued under s 107 complied with the statutory requirements.
Was there non-compliance as described in the s 107 notice?
The issue before the Tribunal is whether there was non-compliance in the way described in the s 107 notice, being the manner particularised in the notice, and if so, whether the visa should be cancelled. The non-compliance identified and particularised in the s 107 notice was non-compliance with ss. 101 and 103 of the Act.
The applicant provided to the Tribunal a copy of the primary decision record. It indicates that she made the application for the Subclass 485 visa on 8 February 2023. On the application form the applicant gave the following answers:
-in response to a question about the Australian study requirement, the applicant stated that
oshe completed a Masters of Cyber Security at Edith Cowan University (ECU) on 31 December 2022
othe course commenced on 26 July 2019 and was completed on 31 December 2022
oshe achieved her qualification on 10 January 2023.
-The applicant completed a declaration that she had read and understood the information in the application and that the information she provided was complete and correct.
In support of the application the applicant provided a letter of completion for the Cyber Security course purportedly issued by ECU dated 10 January 2023 and an academic transcript purportedly issued by ECU on 5 January 2023. These documents show that the applicant met the requirements for the award of the Master of Cyber Security.
The applicant was granted the visa on 28 March 2023. On 8 February 2024 the Director of Student Administration at ECU advised the Department that neither of the two letters mentioned above were produced by the University and that the Master course was incomplete.
In her response to the NOICC the applicant stated that she travelled to Australia to ‘fulfil her dreams’ but had experienced domestic violence and became depressed and could not focus on her study. She could not complain for the sake of her child. The applicant submits that her husband provided false documents but she could not do anything about it because of the pressure from her husband and because of her daughter. The applicant requested that her visa be reinstated to enable her to continue with her studies. In oral evidence to the Tribunal the applicant also conceded that she provided false information and bogus documents.
Having regard to the advice from the ECU and the applicant’s own evidence, the Tribunal finds that the letter of completion and the academic transcript are bogus documents because they were altered by a person without authority. The Tribunal finds that the applicant gave or presented to the Minister or an officer, a bogus document or caused such a document to be given, presented, produced or provided. The Tribunal finds that the applicant did not comply with s. 103 of the Act.
The Tribunal further finds that the applicant did not complete the Masters degree at ECU in December 2022 and did not achieve her qualification in January 2023. The Tribunal finds that these answers on the application form, when the applicant referred to her completion of that course, were incorrect. The Tribunal finds that the applicant completed the application form in a way that incorrect answers were given or provided. The Tribunal finds that the applicant did not comply with s. 101 of the Act.
The Tribunal finds that there was non-compliance with ss. 101 and 103 by the applicant in the way described in the s 107 notice.
Should the visa be cancelled?
As the Tribunal has decided that there was non-compliance in the way described in the notice given to the applicant under s 107 of the Act, it is necessary to consider whether the visa should be cancelled pursuant to s 109(1). Cancellation in this context is discretionary, as there are no mandatory cancellation circumstances prescribed under s 109(2).
In exercising this power, the Tribunal must consider the applicant’s response (if any) to the s 107 notice about the non-compliance, and have regard to any prescribed circumstances: s 109(1)(b) and (c). The prescribed circumstances are set out in reg 2.41 of the Regulations. They are:
The correct information
The correct information is that the applicant had not completed the Master of Cyber Security course which was identified in her application.
The content of the genuine document (if any)
The genuine documents would not show that the applicant had completed her study for the Masters course at ECU.
Whether the decision to grant a visa or immigration clear the visa holder was based, wholly or partly, on incorrect information or a bogus document
Clause 485.221 relevantly required the applicant to have completed a registered course in the 6 months before the application was made. Without completion of the relevant study, the applicant would not have been able to meet that requirement and the criteria for visa grant.
The applicant claimed on her application form that she completed the Masters course in December 2022 and she provided with the application evidence of course completion. That evidence and the applicant’s answers were relied upon to make a finding that she met cl. 485.221. The Tribunal finds that the decision to grant the visa was based, in part, on incorrect information and bogus documents.
The circumstances in which the non-compliance occurred
In her response to the NOICC the applicant claims that she was subjected to family violence. She provided a number of photographs to the delegate and she told the Tribunal she could produce more photographs. The Tribunal is mindful that it is not possible to determine what / who these photographs depict and in what circumstances they were taken – that is, that they depict the violence perpetrated by the applicant’s husband towards her. As such, the Tribunal does not consider these photographs support the applicant’s evidence that she had experience family violence from her partner.
The delegate notes in the primary decision that the applicant made the application for the visa in February 2023 and another application in January 2024 and both applications included the applicant’s partner. The delegate notes that the applicant had not informed the Department about being a victim of family violence in her dealings with the Department and had not informed the Department about the provision of bogus documents and incorrect answers at any time prior to visa grant.
In oral evidence to the Tribunal the applicant stated that she came to Australia in 2019 with her husband and did well in university. In May 2020 she became pregnant, found out that her husband was having an affair and she was subjected to domestic abuse and experienced ‘mental pressure’. The applicant states that her husband used to take all the money from their joint account to send to his girlfriend and his family. The applicant states that she wanted to return to India but could not, due to Covid. The applicant states that she knew that her husband provided a bogus document but she could not do anything as she was scared and could not get help from the family who insisted that she should stay with her husband. The applicant states that in 2024 she was told to move out from the family home. The applicant refers to her poor mental state and financial repercussions.
The applicant explained to the Tribunal that it was her husband who liaised with the migration agent and who prepared the visa application. The applicant states that she did what her husband told her to do and he ‘forced her’. The Tribunal does not accept that claim since the applicant was the primary applicant and would have been required to sign the form, obtain personal paperwork and would have otherwise been involved in the preparation of the application. The applicant would have been aware of the provision of bogus documents and incorrect answers (and she admits that she was) and, in the Tribunal’s view, was complicit in the fraud by signing the application form which she knew contained incorrect answers and bogus documents.
The applicant concedes that she was involved in the process but states that she had no choice. The Tribunal does not accept the applicant’s claims. With respect to the applicant’s claim of family violence, the Tribunal is mindful that this claim is unsupported by any probative evidence. There is no evidence of family violence (other than the photographs addressed elsewhere). There are no medical records, reports from health professionals or social workers. There are no police records. There is no evidence that the applicant had approached anyone to seek support with respect to the claimed family violence. The applicant has not provided copies of her communication with her family where she refers to family violence but is encouraged to remain within the marriage. The applicant told the Tribunal that she did not approach police or any of the support services, stating that she acted in accordance with what her family wanted and the cultural expectations to live with her husband no matter what. The Tribunal is mindful that the applicant has been living in Australia for a number of years and in the Tribunal’s view, she would have been aware of the availability of support services. She told the Tribunal that her employer was aware of the issue and it is possible that her employer could have also directed the applicant to the available supports. In the absence of any probative evidence of the family violence, the Tribunal is not prepared to accept unquestioningly the applicant’s claims.
The Tribunal also places weight on the fact that, according to the delegate, the applicant never took any steps to inform the Department about the family violence. She had the opportunity to do so by contacting the Department at any time, before the applications were made, during its processing and since the visa grant. The applicant’s own evidence to the Tribunal is that she informed Immigration about the situation around February 2025 after her second application was refused. The fact that the applicant made no mention of the family violence, either to the Department or any other service until her application was finalised, also suggests to the Tribunal that the claim of family violence may be a recent invention.
Further, even if the Tribunal were to accept the applicant’s evidence that it was her former partner who arranged the bogus document and insisted on the submission of the bogus document and the provision of incorrect answers (a claim the Tribunal does not necessarily accept), the fact that the applicant took no steps to inform the Department about this, even after her relationship broke down, and she continued to rely on these falsehoods in the second application until the visa refusal in February 2025, strongly suggests to the Tribunal that the applicant was not only aware of the fraud, but had authorised it and was agreeable to the perpetration of that fraud. In the Tribunal’s view, if the applicant had any concerns about the provision of false information and of the bogus documents, and if she did so due to being forced by another person (as she essentially claims), she would have taken steps to rectify the situation as soon as she was able to, for example once the relationship broke down in 2024.
The applicant told the Tribunal that she moved out from the family home in August 2024. She states that once her second subclass 485 visa was refused, around February 2025 she told Immigration about the bogus document and the incorrect answers. It is of significant concern to the Tribunal that the applicant continued to rely on the visa application process, knowing that she provided incorrect answers and bogus documents, and it was only after he visa refusal in February 2025, some six months after the relationship breakdown, that the applicant chose to inform Immigration about her claimed circumstances. When asked why she did not inform Immigration earlier, the applicant told the Tribunal that she was pressured by the family to remain in the relationship, she was depressed and had no friends or family to support her and she was separated from her daughter so she was “physically and mentally abused”. The Tribunal does not accept these claims as they are entirely unsupported by any probative. As noted above, there is no probative evidence (for example, medical reports) concerning the applicant’s mental state and no evidence to support her claim that she was unable, due to her mental state or for any other reason, to take steps to notify Immigration about her situation. The Tribunal is mindful that in the same period, the applicant was able to manage her household and maintain her daily activities. She also told the Tribunal that she has been working in a restaurant, on a part-time basis, as a shift leader since about 2022. The Tribunal does not accept that the applicant was able to maintain a responsible job and other activities but was too depressed to inform the Department about the family violence and the provision of bogus documents until February 2025.
The Tribunal does not accept the applicant’s evidence that she was ‘forced’ to provide bogus documents and incorrect answers. The Tribunal has formed the view that the applicant was aware of the fraud, that she had authorised it and was willingly complicit in it.
The present circumstances of the visa holder
In her submission to the delegate the applicant stated that she was subjected to family violence and her relationship with her partner has ended. The applicant states that her partner took their child to India and she has not been able to see or have contact with her child. The applicant refers to pressure from her husband’s family in India.
The applicant repeatedly told the Tribunal that she wants to complete the course in Australia and that she wants to have ‘another chance’. However, she told the Tribunal that she completed one semester of the course and has not done any study since 2020. When asked why she had not studied since 2020, the applicant stated that her present bridging visa does not allow her to study but she also stated that she has not studied since 2020 because (she claims) of lack of funds. The applicant claims that she now has a job that would allow her to pay for the course but she told the Tribunal she has been working in the same job since about 2022. It is not apparent why the applicant believes she is now able to engage in studies if her visa allows it, but she was not able to do so prior to the cancellation of her visa. The applicant presented no evidence concerning her financial circumstances at present, or her situation in the past which, she claims, prevented past study. The Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant was not able to engage in studies since 2020 and that the applicant genuinely intends to engage in studies if her visa is reinstated.
The applicant told the Tribunal that she has been living away from her daughter and has not spoken to her daughter since September 2024. The Tribunal acknowledges that evidence but is mindful that this situation is unrelated to the visa issues and that the applicant’s relationship with her daughter may be the same irrespective of the visa she holds. The applicant told the Tribunal that she has applied for divorce and may wish to apply for guardianship of her daughter. The Tribunal accepts that it may be more difficult for the applicant to obtain guardianship if she does not reside in Australia.
The applicant refers to her employment and the Tribunal accepts that the applicant has been gainfully employed.
The subsequent behaviour of the visa holder concerning his or her obligations under Subdivision C of Division 3 of Part 2 of the Act
Nothing adverse is known about the applicant’s subsequent behaviour concerning her obligations under the Act. The applicant conceded the non-compliance in her response to the NOICC and subsequent submissions.
Any other instances of non-compliance by the visa holder known to the Minister
The delegate notes in the primary decision that in September 2021 the applicant made the application for the Student visa and provided with that application a CoE for a Master of Cyber Security at ECU commencing in July 2021 and she was granted the Student visa on that basis. However, the delegate notes that according to PRISMS, the CoE ID which the applicant provided with the application does not exist and the University advised the Department in November 2024 that they have no record of issuing the applicant the CoE. The delegate notes that if this information was known, the applicant may not have been eligible for the Student visa and would not have been able to make a valid application for the Skilled visa as she may not have met Item 1229 (which relevantly required her to be a holder of an eligible Student visa).

The applicant also told the Tribunal that she had applied for the extension of the subclass 485 visa in early 2024 and in that application, she also claimed that she had completed the Master of Cyber Security course. That is, she provided the same incorrect answers and gave the same bogus documents with that application as she did with the earlier application that is the subject of this review.
The applicant told the Tribunal that she was living with her husband at the time and had to do what he told her to do. These claims are addressed above.
The time that has elapsed since the non-compliance
The application for the Skilled visa was made in February 2023. About two and a half years passed since the non-compliance.
Any breaches of the law since the non-compliance and the seriousness of those breaches
There are no known breaches of the law.
Any contribution made by the holder to the community.
The applicant states that she has not done anything wrong to anyone and loves Australia and has done her best for Australia. The Tribunal does not consider this to constitute a contribution to the community.
While these factors must be considered, they do not represent an exhaustive statement of the circumstances that might properly be considered to be relevant in any given case: MIAC v Khadgi (2010) 190 FCR 248. The Tribunal may also have regard to lawful government policy. The relevant policy is set out in the Department’s Procedural Advice Manual) PAM3 ‘General visa cancellation powers’, which refers to matters such as the consequences of cancelling the visa, international obligations and any other relevant matters.
Whether there would be consequential cancellations under s 140.
If the applicant’s visa is cancelled, the visas held by her partner and child would be subject to consequential cancellation. The applicant’s evidence is that she is no longer in a relationship with her partner (which may indicate that the circumstances which permitted the grant of his visa no longer exist and give rise to separate ground for the cancellation of his visa) and that both her partner and her child, born in 2021, now reside overseas. Further, while the Tribunal notes the applicant’s evidence that she wants to bring her daughter to Australia, her ex-partner would not allow that and the applicant admits that she could not bring the child without a formal custody order which she does not presently have and has not applied for. In the circumstances, there would appear to be very little, if any, adverse effect on the spouse and child as a result of the consequential cancellation of their visas.
If there are children whose interests would be affected by cancellation, or consequential cancellation, decision-makers should consider the best interests of those children as a primary consideration when deciding whether to cancel the visa.
The applicant has a daughter born in 2021. The applicant’s evidence is that her child resides overseas with her father and his girlfriend. The applicant told the Tribunal that if her visa is cancelled, the child will remain in India and the applicant states that if she were to return to India, the family would not allow her to live with the child. The applicant states that her husband and the family will not allow the child to come to Australia and her husband has not allowed the child to even talk to her. The applicant states that if her visa is not cancelled, she will fight for the custody of the child and wants to bring the child to Australia. However, given that the applicant’s visa was due to expire in less than 8 months if not cancelled, it would appear unrealistic that the applicant will be able to apply for, and obtain a formal custody in that period. The applicant told the Tribunal that she wants to apply for another visa but she was unable to identify any visa she could apply for other than to state that her employer might sponsor her.
In the circumstances where the applicant needs a formal custody order to bring the child to Australia and when she has not commenced the process to obtain that order, and where the grant of the custody order (and of another visa to the applicant) is purely speculative at present, the Tribunal does not consider that there is presently a realistic possibility of the child being able to travel to Australia as the applicant’s evidence is that the family will not allow her to come to Australia without a formal order.
The applicant’s evidence is that according to her friend, the child now lives with her father and his girlfriend and she is sure the girlfriend does not look after the child properly because the husband did not help look after the child in the past. There is no evidence whatsoever (no statements from neighbours, friends, family members etc) to indicate that the child is not appropriately looked after. There is no evidence to satisfy the Tribunal that the child’s best interests are not being met at present or that they would be better served if the child were to come to Australia. This is particularly so given the fact that the applicant holds a temporary visa that was due to expire in about eight months and she has not been able to meaningfully explain how she plans to extend her stay in Australia. That is, even if the child were to come to Australia (and that at present and in the absence of a custody order is not a realistic option irrespective of the applicant’s visa), she is likely face a degree of instability and uncertainty living in Australia and would have limited supports available here.
In all the circumstances, the Tribunal does not consider that the child’s best interests would be better met if the applicant’s visa is not cancelled. That is, the Tribunal does not consider that the cancellation of the applicant’s visa is contrary to the best interest of the child. The Tribunal does not consider that the setting aside of the cancellation is in the best interests of the child.
Whether the cancellation would lead to the person's removal in breach of Australia's non-refoulement or family unity obligations.
In her response to the NOICC the applicant states that her husband and his family have been ‘harassing’ her and that she is not safe to return to India. The applicant’s oral evidence to the Tribunal was somewhat different as the applicant told the Tribunal that in India it is always the women who are blamed for relationship breakdowns and she would ‘suffer’ the accusations from all the family members. The applicant also states that she is getting many messages blaming her. (No evidence of such messages has been presented.) The applicant states that she cannot do anything in India and cannot support herself and she cannot do anything for her daughter. The applicant states that she would be harassed in India.
The applicant also told the Tribunal that if she returns to India, her family will force her to live with her husband. The Tribunal does not accept that evidence, noting the applicant’s claim that the husband now lives with someone else, which is socially known, and that they plan to marry. The applicant also told the Tribunal that she has approached a lawyer in India to initiate the divorce. In the circumstances, the Tribunal does not accept the applicant will be forced to live with her husband.
The Tribunal found the applicant’s claims to be vague and unsupported by evidence. The applicant presented no evidence of having received any messages or other forms of harassment, there is no evidence of her communication with family members or others. The Tribunal does not accept the claims by the applicant that she has been harassed or that she would be subjected to harassment and any other form of harm if she returns to India.
The Tribunal is also mindful that if the applicant believes she cannot live safely in India, she has the option of seeking a protection visa in Australia. The applicant told the Tribunal that she had approached an agent in relation to a protection visa and was told that she would need more evidence which she does not have. Despite that, the Tribunal is satisfied that the applicant is eligible to make a valid application for the protection visa if she wishes to do that.
The Tribunal does not consider that Australia’s non-refoulement obligations would be breached as a result of the cancellation.
Whether there are mandatory legal consequences, such as whether the person would become unlawful and liable to detention and removal, whether detention is a likely consequence of the cancellation decision and if so, for how long, and whether there are provisions in the Act which prevent the person from making a valid application for any visa without the Minister personally intervening.
If the applicant’s visa is cancelled, and if she is not granted another visa, the applicant would be an unlawful non-citizen and may be detained and removed from Australia. There is no suggestion that the applicant would face indefinite detention. The applicant will have limited opportunities of seeking another visa in Australia due to the operation of s. 48 and she would be subject to an exclusion period in PIC 4013 in relation to future visa application.
Any other relevant matters (including the degree of hardship that may be caused to the visa holder and any family members).
The applicant states that she wants to return to her studies and complete the course. As noted above, the Tribunal is not convinced that the applicant genuinely wants to continue her study, given that she has not taken any steps to study since 2020 (and presented no evidence that she could not afford to engage in studies). Nevertheless, the Tribunal generally accepts that if the applicant’s visa is cancelled, she would not be able to undertake study in Australia. The Tribunal is also mindful that the visa would have expired in March 2026 however the applicant told the Tribunal that she needs at least one year to complete the Cybersecurity course (and she states she would need a year to complete another course). That is, the present visa, even if reinstated, would not permit the applicant to complete the study in Australia. The applicant states that she could apply for an extension of the Subclass 485 visa to complete a course. The Tribunal is mindful that it is not the purpose of the Subclass 485 visa to enable the visa holder to study in Australia. A Student visa is a visa that is more suitable for that purpose while the Subclass 485 visa is designed for applicants who have already completed study in Australia and the applicant has not done that. It is also not for this Tribunal to speculate whether the applicant would be granted another visa to enable her to remain in Australia beyond the eight months.
In the circumstances where the applicant would be unable to complete her studies before the expiry of her visa, and in the absence of probative evidence and realistic options concerning future visa options (which would require the Tribunal to engage in speculation as to the visa grant), the Tribunal places only limited weight on the fact that the cancellation of the visa would prevent the applicant from being able to study in Australia.
The applicant states that she has no help in India, no support from her parents and she claims she would not be able to support herself, which she can do in Australia. That is why she prefers to remain in Australia as she can work and support herself and complete her studies. The applicant states that without support, she may have to live with her husband again and she may again be subjected to abuse. For the reasons stated above, the Tribunal has rejected the applicant’s claim that she would be forced to live with her husband if she were to return to India. The Tribunal notes that the applicant has not presented any evidence about employment options that maybe available to her in India and no evidence to support her assertion that she cannot support herself in India.
The Tribunal also notes that the visa that is the subject of this review is a temporary visa only that would require the applicant to return to her home country. It does not allow the applicant to live and work in Australia beyond the visa period. The Tribunal cannot speculate as to whether the applicant will be able to remain in Australia on another visa. The applicant told the Tribunal that she wants to stay in Australia to work and earn more money. The Tribunal accepts that she may not be able to do so if her visa is cancelled but gives this consideration limited weight in circumstances where the applicant holds a visa that only allows for a relatively short period of residence in Australia.
The Tribunal has considered the totality of the applicant’s circumstances. The Tribunal has determined that there was non-compliance with ss. 101 and 103 of the Act and that there are grounds for cancelling her visa.
The Tribunal accepts that hardship may be caused to the applicant if her visa is cancelled. This is primarily because the applicant will not have the opportunity to undertake further studies in Australia and because there is a possibility that she will have to leave Australia (unless she makes another visa application and is granted another visa). The applicant will also not have the opportunity to work in Australia. She will have limited options with respect to future visa applications. The Tribunal accepts that these matters may cause hardship to the applicant.
The applicant refers to lack of supports in India, inability to support herself and her preference to remain in Australia and to work in Australia. While the Tribunal does not consider lack of supports and the applicant’s personal and family circumstances to be the consequence of the visa cancellation, as noted above, the Tribunal is prepared to accept that some hardship will be caused by the cancellation of the visa. These factors weigh against the cancellation.
The Tribunal acknowledges that the legal consequences of the cancellation would mean that the applicant has more limited options with respect to future visa applications and that she may be required to leave Australia. These factors weigh somewhat in favour of setting aside the cancellation. The visas held by the applicant’s partner and child would also be cancelled but the fact that they have already left Australia and do not appear to have any intention to return to Australia suggests that there are no hardships to them arising from the consequential cancellation. The Tribunal gives these factors very limited weight against the cancellation.
There is no evidence concerning the applicant’s contribution to community. There is no evidence of any breaches of the law and nothing adverse is known about the applicant’s obligations under the Act. These considerations are neutral. The Tribunal has formed the view that the best interests of the child would not be adversely affected by the cancellation of the applicant’s visa. That consideration is also neutral.
In considering the circumstances of the non-compliance, the Tribunal is unconvinced by the applicant’s claim that it was her husband who perpetrated the fraud and that she had no choice. This is because, firstly, there is little independent evidence that the applicant did experience family violence. The applicant told the Tribunal that she had additional photographs that she could provide. The Tribunal does not consider that helpful (as noted above, the Tribunal cannot be satisfied the photographs represent family violence against the applicant perpetrated by her husband). Secondly, even after the relationship broke down in 2024, the applicant failed to engage with the Department and inform the Department about the provision of bogus documents and incorrect answers and, on her own evidence, she had not done so until February 2025 when her other visa application was refused. It appears the applicant was content to rely on the bogus document and incorrect answers, despite not being subjected to any pressure from her husband, in order to obtain the visa.
In the circumstances of this case, the Tribunal has decided to give the greatest weight to the following factors. Firstly, the decision to grant the visa was based on incorrect information and bogus documents. Essentially, if it was known that the applicant did not complete a course in Australia, she would not have been entitled to be granted the visa. This is a very significant factor in favour of the cancellation and, in the Tribunal’s view, that factor alone outweighs other considerations that weigh against the cancellation, irrespective of the circumstances in which the ground for cancellation arose.
Secondly, there are other instances of non-compliance, most notably in relation to the Student visa and the second Skilled visa application. The information in the primary decision record indicates that when seeking the Student visa, the applicant relied on the CoE which may have been a bogus document. The Tribunal considers it significant, that if that information was known, the applicant would not have been granted the Student visa and may not have been eligible to apply for the Skilled visa. Further, the applicant’s evidence to the Tribunal is that she used the same documents relating to the Cybersecurity course at ECU when applying for the second Subclass 485 visa. These would have constituted other breaches of ss.101 and 103 of the Act.
The Tribunal also places some weight on the fact that the applicant failed to inform the Department about the changes in her circumstances once her relationship with her partner ended, in breach of s. 104. The existence of other instances of non-compliance also weigh in favour of the cancellation.
Thirdly, the Tribunal places significant weight on the fact that the applicant was aware of the fraud and the Tribunal has formed the view that she was complicit in it. The Tribunal is unconvinced by the applicant’s evidence that she was ‘forced’ by her husband. In the Tribunal’s view, the applicant had willingly participated in the fraud, and continued to rely on it until her visa applications were no longer on foot, well after her relationship with the husband broke down. The Tribunal finds that the circumstances in which the non-compliance occurred weigh strongly in favour of the cancellation.
However, even if the Tribunal were to accept the entirety of the applicant’s evidence and that she was ‘forced’ to provide the bogus document and incorrect answers and had no other option, the Tribunal would still determine that the visa should be cancelled in circumstances where the incorrect answer and bogus document were so central to the applicant’s eligibility for the visa and where the decision to grant the visa was based on incorrect information.
In all the circumstances of this case, the Tribunal decided that the circumstances that favour the cancellation outweigh those that are against the cancellation. The Tribunal determines that the visa should be cancelled.
Conclusion
The Tribunal has decided that there was non-compliance by the applicant in the way described in the notice given under s 107 of the Act. Further, having regard to all the relevant circumstances, as discussed above, the Tribunal concludes that the visa should be cancelled.
DECISION
The Tribunal affirms the decision to cancel the applicant’s Subclass 485 (Temporary Graduate) visa.
Date(s) of hearing 31 July 2025
Representative for the Applicant: n/a