SANDHU (Migration)

This matter concerned the review of a decision to cancel the applicant's Subclass 187 Regional Employer Nomination visa. The applicant had provided information in his visa application regarding his employment history, including details of his roles as a cook and a taxi driver, and whether these were related to the nominated position. The delegate of the Minister formed the view that the applicant had failed to comply with section 101 of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth) by providing incorrect information in his application.

The Tribunal was required to determine whether the applicant had failed to comply with section 101 of the Act, as particularised in the Notice of Intention to Consider Cancellation (NOICC), and if so, whether the visa should be cancelled. Section 101 mandates that a non-citizen must complete their visa application form such that all questions are answered and no incorrect answers are provided. Section 100 clarifies that an answer is considered incorrect even if the person providing it did not know it was incorrect. Section 109 of the Act empowers the Minister to cancel a visa if a decision is made under section 108 that there was non-compliance with section 101.

The Tribunal found that the delegate had reached the necessary state of mind to engage section 107 and that the notice issued complied with statutory requirements. The NOICC detailed specific employment entries provided by the applicant, including his roles as a cook and taxi driver, and his responses as to whether these were related to the nominated position. The Tribunal concluded that there was non-compliance by the applicant in the manner described in the s.107 notice. Having considered all relevant circumstances, the Tribunal affirmed the decision to cancel the applicant's visa.