Sharma (Migration)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal considered the decision to cancel the applicant's Subclass 500 (Student) visa. The applicant had previously been granted a Visitor visa based on a bank statement that was later found by the Department of Home Affairs to have not been issued by the named bank. The Tribunal was required to determine whether the notice of non-compliance issued under section 107 of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth) was valid and whether the applicant had indeed failed to comply with the Act by providing a bogus document.

The central legal issue was whether the applicant's provision of a bank statement, which was subsequently identified as not having been issued by the bank, constituted a failure to comply with section 103 of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth), which prohibits the provision of bogus documents. The Tribunal also had to consider whether the delegate had formed the necessary state of mind to engage section 107 and whether the notice issued under that section met the statutory requirements.

The Tribunal reasoned that the notice issued under section 107 complied with the statutory requirements and that the applicant had failed to comply with section 103 by providing a bogus document. The Tribunal applied the definition of a "bogus document" in section 5(1) of the Act, which includes a document that purports to have been issued but was not, or was obtained because of a false or misleading statement. The Tribunal found that the bank statement provided by the applicant met this definition, as HDFC Bank advised that they did not issue the document. Having found non-compliance, the Tribunal then considered the relevant circumstances and concluded that the decision to cancel the visa should be affirmed. The Tribunal affirmed the decision to cancel the applicant's Subclass 500 (Student) visa.