Shaheen (Migration)

This matter concerned an appeal by the applicant against the Minister's decision to cancel her Subclass 187 (Regional Sponsored Migration Scheme) visa. The cancellation was based on allegations that the nomination applications for both her Subclass 457 and Subclass 187 visas were not genuine, that bogus documents with forged signatures were provided by a recruitment consultant, and that the applicant was involved in a scheme to pay for visa sponsorship. The employers nominated by the applicant stated they had never sponsored or employed her, and that false documents were submitted without their knowledge. The applicant's son, born in Australia, was an Australian citizen.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the Minister was satisfied that the grounds for cancellation under section 116(1AB) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) were made out. This section allows for visa cancellation if the Minister is satisfied that a visa was obtained by fraud or by the provision of bogus documents, or that the applicant has knowingly or recklessly made a false statement or supplied false information in relation to the visa application or a related application. The court also had to consider whether, having found the grounds for cancellation established, the Minister's discretion to cancel the visa was exercised appropriately, taking into account all relevant circumstances, including government policy and the rights of the applicant's Australian citizen child.

The court affirmed the decision to cancel the visa. It found that the evidence strongly indicated that the nomination applications were not genuine and that bogus documents, including forged signatures, were provided by a third party, likely with the applicant's knowledge. The statements from the employers, denying any employment or sponsorship of the applicant, were considered credible and directly contradicted the information provided in the visa applications. The court reasoned that the nomination and visa applications were directly related, and the evidence pointed to probable fraud by the recruitment consultant, with the applicant's awareness. The court also considered the impact on the applicant's Australian citizen child, but concluded that the serious nature of the immigration fraud outweighed this consideration.