Romha (Migration)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal considered the cancellation of a Subclass 100 (Spouse) visa held by the applicant, Ms. Romha. The dispute arose because the applicant had provided incorrect information in her initial visa application, failing to declare her partner and child, who were members of her family unit. The matter had previously been before the Federal Circuit Court, which remitted it for reconsideration by the Tribunal.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether to exercise its discretion to cancel Ms. Romha's visa, given the incorrect information provided in her application. This involved assessing whether the applicant's current circumstances, including her marriage to a permanent resident and the best interests of her Australian citizen child, warranted setting aside the cancellation decision. The Tribunal was not required to determine the existence of a de facto relationship at the time of the initial application.

The Tribunal ultimately decided not to cancel the visa, placing greater weight on the applicant's present circumstances. It noted that her husband could not accompany her to her home country if she were required to leave Australia, and it considered the best interests of their minor child. The Tribunal found that these factors outweighed the initial misrepresentation, which it noted was made in an application prepared by her uncle, signed by the applicant without ensuring its correctness. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the decision under review and substituted a decision not to cancel the applicant's Subclass 100 (Spouse) visa.