Romha (Migration)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal considered the case of Ms Romha, a visa applicant, and the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs. The dispute concerned the cancellation of Ms Romha's Partner (Migrant) (Class BC – Subclass 100) visa. The cancellation was based on allegations of non-compliance with visa application requirements.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether Ms Romha had failed to comply with section 101(b) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) by providing incorrect answers in her visa application. Specifically, the Tribunal had to determine if the failure to declare her child, Noad, constituted non-compliance, and if so, whether her visa should be cancelled under section 109 of the Act. The Tribunal also considered whether the notice issued under section 107 of the Act was valid and complied with statutory requirements.

The Tribunal found that Ms Romha had indeed failed to declare her child in her visa application, which constituted non-compliance with section 101(b) of the Act, as an answer is considered incorrect even if the applicant was unaware of the inaccuracy. The Tribunal was satisfied that the notice issued under section 107 was valid and that the delegate had reached the necessary state of mind to engage the cancellation provisions. After considering the prescribed circumstances for cancellation under regulation 2.41 of the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth), the Tribunal concluded that the visa should be cancelled.