Shawaiz (Migration)

Shawaiz (Migration) [2024] AATA 633 (31 January 2024)
CORRIGENDUM
DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division
APPLICANT:  Mr Muhammad Shawaiz
REPRESENTATIVE:  Mrs Nazia Saqib (MARN: 1571391)
CASE NUMBER:  2300378
HOME AFFAIRS REFERENCE(S):          BCC2021/1330261
MEMBER:David McCulloch
DATE OF DECISION:  31 January 2024
DATE CORRIGENDUM
SIGNED:10 April 2024
PLACE OF DECISION:  Sydney
AMENDMENT:  The following corrections are made to the decision:

The date on the cover page of the decision record should be replaced with 31 January 2024
David McCulloch
Member

DECISION RECORD
DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division
APPLICANT:  Mr Muhammad Shawaiz
REPRESENTATIVE:  Mrs Nazia Saqib (MARN: 1571391)
CASE NUMBER:  2300378
HOME AFFAIRS REFERENCE(S):          BCC2021/1330261
MEMBER:David McCulloch
DATE:31 January 2023
PLACE OF DECISION:  Sydney
DECISION:The Tribunal sets aside the decision under review and substitutes a decision not to cancel the applicant’s Subclass 500 (Student) visa.

Statement made on 31 January 2024 at 10:00am
CATCHWORDS
MIGRATION – cancellation – Student (Class TU) visa – Subclass 500 (Student) – incorrect information and bogus documents – financial support from father and bank documents –application prepared by agent without knowledge of applicant or father – information from bank showed account held much lesser amount, and is now closed, but father advised he never held an account – evidence from another bank about father’s finances – agent now being officially investigated for fraud – change of subject area and return to study after period of stress and uncertainty – career goals – decision under review set aside
LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss 5(1)(b), 101(b), 103, 107, 109(1)
Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth), r 2.41
CASE
MIAC v Khadgi (2010) 190 FCR 248

STATEMENT OF DECISION AND REASONS
APPLICATION FOR REVIEW

This is an application for review of a decision made by a delegate of the Minister for Home Affairs on 9 January 2023 to cancel the applicant’s Subclass 500 (Student) visa under s 109(1) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (the Act).
The applicant is a citizen of Pakistan. The visa that was cancelled was granted on 16 March 2020 for a stay period until 9 June 2023.
The delegate cancelled the visa on the basis that the applicant had provided incorrect answers in a visa application, breaching s 101(b) of the Act and producing bogus documents, breaching s 103 of the Act. The issue in the present case is whether the grounds for cancellation were made out, and if so, whether the visa should be cancelled.
The applicant appeared before the Tribunal on 29 January 2024 at 9.30 am to give evidence and present arguments.
The applicant was represented in relation to the review. The representative attended the hearing by telephone.
For the following reasons, the Tribunal has concluded that the decision to cancel the applicant’s visa should be set aside.
CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE
Section 109(1) of the Act allows the Minister to cancel a visa if the visa holder has failed to comply with ss 101, 102, 103, 104, 105 or 107(2) of the Act. Broadly speaking, these sections require non-citizens to provide correct information in their visa applications and passenger cards, not to provide bogus documents and to notify the Department of any incorrect information of which they become aware and of any relevant changes in circumstances.
The exercise of the cancellation power under s 109 of the Act is conditional on the Minister issuing a valid notice to the visa holder under s 107 of the Act, providing particulars of the alleged non-compliance. Where a notice is issued that does not comply with the requirements in s 107, the power to cancel the visa does not arise. Extracts of the Act relevant to this case are attached to this decision.
In the present matter, the Tribunal is satisfied that the delegate had reached the necessary state of mind to engage s 107 and that the notice issued under s 107 complied with the statutory requirements.
Was there non-compliance as described in the s 107 notice?
The issue before the Tribunal is whether there was non-compliance in the way described in the s 107 notice, being the manner particularised in the notice, and if so, whether the visa should be cancelled. The non-compliance identified and particularised in the s 107 notice was non-compliance with s 101(b) and s 103. The s 107 notice advised relevantly as follows:
Information provided in your application
On 3 March 2020, you lodged an application for a Student (subclass 500) visa using the online form Application for a Student Visa. On page 6 of the application form, under the heading:
Financial support from an individual you provided the following information:
Will the funds be provided by an individual other than the applicant?
Yes
Relationship to the applicant: Parent
Funding type: Deposit in financial institution
Value in Australia dollars: 45000
(whole dollars only)
Financial institution: Invest Capital Investment Bank Ltd
On page 13 and 14 under the heading Declarations you provided the following answers, in part:
Warning:
Giving false or misleading information is a serious offence.
The applicants declare that they:
Have read and understood the information provided to them in this application.
Yes
Have provided complete and correct information in every detail on this form, and on any attachments to it.
Yes
Understand that if documents are found to be fraudulent or information to be incorrect after the grant of a visa, the visa may subsequently be cancelled.
Yes
In support of your application, you submitted the following documentary evidence to support your claimed financial capacity:
·An account maintenance certificate dated 29 February 2020, issued by Faysal Bank Limited. The letter certifies that NAWAZ AHMAD is maintaining a BARKAT CURRENT ACCOUNT, account #3075301000001838, with Faysal Bank Limited IBB MUSLIM BAZAR, SARGODHA since 29 January 2020.
·An account statement in the name of NAWAZ AHMAD, Account No: 3075301000001838 for the statement period of 29 January 2020 to 29 February 2020. The closing balance is listed as 5,108,694.80 PKR.
·An affidavit of financial support by the visa holder’s father NAWAZ AHMAD stating his financial solvency and specifically stating that he has a Faysal Bank Account, acct # 3075301000001838 with a current balance of 5,108,694.80 PKR.
Based on the above information, as well as meeting all other relevant criteria, you were granted a Student visa on 16 March 2020.
Subsequent information received by the Department
On 12 September 2022, the Department received confirmation from the Faysal Bank, Sargodha Khayyam Branch that the account number 3075301000001838, in the name of Nawaz Ahmad never held a balance into PKR millions. The Bank Manager also confirmed that on the 29 February 2020, the closing balance for the account was PKR 28,000 only. Additionally, the Bank Manager advised that this account was closed on 22 March 2022. Therefore considering the discrepancy in the official records of the Bank, you have provided non-genuine documents in your Student visa application.
Non-compliance with section 101(b)
I consider that you provided incorrect answers in your application for the Student visa when you:
·Provided details of financial support on page 6 of the visa application form, when you have stated yes in response to whether the funds will be provided by someone other than the applicant, parent as the relationship to the applicant, deposit in financial institution as the funding type, 45000 as the value in Australian dollars, and Invest Capital Investment Bank Ltd as the financial institution.
·By declaring you have provided complete and correct information in every details on this form, and on any attachments to it on page 14.
I consider this information to be incorrect because on 12 September 2022, the Department received confirmation from the Faysal Bank, Sargodha Khayyam Branch that the amount stated on the bank statement for the period of 29 January 2020 to 29 February 2020 is incorrect. The actual amount was PKR 28,000 and the account never amassed a sum into PKR millions to equal the claimed amount of 45000 Australian dollars.
Non-compliance with section 103
I consider that you have not complied with section 103 of the Act because in support of your Student visa application, you submitted the following bogus documents:
·A letter of dated 29 February 2020, issued for and on behalf of Faysal Bank Limited. The letter certifies that NAWAZ AHMAD is maintaining an account, #3075301000001838, with Faysal Bank Limited IBB MUSLIM BAZAR, SARGODHA since 29 January 2020.
·An account statement in the name of NAWAZ AHMAD, Account No: 3075301000001838 for the statement period of 29 January 2020 to 29 February 2020. The closing balance is listed as 5,108,694.80 PKR.
·By providing an affidavit by the visa holder’s father NAWAZ AHMAD stating his financial solvency and specifically stating that he has a Faysal Bank Account, acct #3075301000001838 with a current balance of 5,108,694.80 PKR.
I consider these to be bogus document within the meaning provided at paragraph (b) under section 5(1) of the Act, which states:
bogus document, in relation to a person, means a document that the Minister reasonably suspects is a document that:
(b) is counterfeit or has been altered by a person who does not have authority to do so; or
On 12 September 2022, the Department received confirmation from the Faysal Bank, Sargodha Khayyam Branch that the account number 3075301000001838, in the name of Nawaz Ahmad held the balance of PKR 28,000 on 29 February 2020, not 5,108,694.80 PKR as purported on the document you provided.
I therefore reasonably suspect that the documents relating to Faysal Bank Limited certification letter and account statement are counterfeit or have been altered by a person who does not have authority to do so. I also consider the affidavit of support provided by your father contains incorrect information in support of the bogus documents from Faysal Bank Limited and the incorrect bank balance.
Based on the above information, I consider you have provided incorrect answers and submitted bogus documents in your Student visa application. I therefore, consider that you have not complied with sections 101(b) and 103 of the Act, and accordingly your Student visa may be liable for cancellation under section 109 of the Act.
The applicant was notified of and invited to comment on the notice of intention to consider cancellation (NOICC) of their student visa on 24 October 2022. The applicant provided a response on 7 November 2022.
The applicant provided the following statement dated 7 November 2022 in response to the NOICC (not corrected for spelling and grammar, headings and footings omitted):
Thanks for giving me an opportunity to explain myself as a Genuine Temporary Entrant for study purpose and I would like to explain and give responses in relation to the objections mentioned in last request.
I would like to state that my visa application was applied and dealt by a consultant in Pakistan. I am not aware that he applied it directly in my name or his own company. I never had any account in invest capital investment bank ltd. I am not sure why that was filled in the application. I am no more in touch with the consultant as well to understand the process better. I had provided the information that he told me to provide not knowing many details. Now that I am here and have dealt with student affairs myself like talking to student counsellors and dealing with student support centres, I have realised a lot of new things. Now I can let you know that I think have complied with all the rules that I knew and might not have done so unintentionally in some cases.
I believe I have been doing well in my studies, continuing to comply with Australian law as well as institute’s regulations. I am paying full attention to studies and not involved in any unlawful activity. I can attach my performance certificate as well. You can see that I have been attending the study regularly. It means a lot to me and my family back in Pakistan. I wish to resume my study and return once I have completed the study. I have already invested in coming here and now if the visa gets refused it will be waste of not just the finances, a year of study but I will not find a suitable university due to this gap in Pakistan and another year will be wasted. I have no words to show my remorse if I not complied with anything in past and assure that I will be very careful in future.
In the hearing, although offering explanatory factors, the applicant and representative agreed that the grounds for cancellation are made out.
For these reasons, the Tribunal finds that there was non-compliance with s 101(b) and s 103 by the applicant in the way described in the s 107 notice.
Should the visa be cancelled?
As the Tribunal has decided that there was non-compliance in the way described in the notice given to the applicant under s 107 of the Act, it is necessary to consider whether the visa should be cancelled pursuant to s 109(1). Cancellation in this context is discretionary, as there are no mandatory cancellation circumstances prescribed under s 109(2).
In exercising this power, the Tribunal must consider the applicant’s response (if any) to the s 107 notice about the non-compliance, and have regard to any prescribed circumstances: ss 109(1)(b) and (c). The prescribed circumstances are set out in reg 2.41 of the Migration Regulations 1994 (the Regulations). Briefly, they are:
·     the correct information;
·     the content of the genuine document (if any);
·     whether the decision to grant a visa or immigration clear the visa holder was based, wholly or partly, on incorrect information or a bogus document;
·     the circumstances in which the non-compliance occurred;
·     the present circumstances of the visa holder;
·     the subsequent behaviour of the visa holder concerning his or her obligations under Subdivision C of Division 3 of Part 2 of the Act;
·     any other instances of non-compliance by the visa holder known to the Minister;
·     the time that has elapsed since the non-compliance;
·     any breaches of the law since the non-compliance and the seriousness of those breaches;
·     any contribution made by the holder to the community.
While these factors must be considered, they do not represent an exhaustive statement of the circumstances that might properly be considered to be relevant in any given case: MIAC v Khadgi (2010) 190 FCR 248. The Tribunal may also have regard to lawful government policy. The relevant policy is set out in the Department’s Procedural Advice Manual (PAM3) ‘General visa cancellation powers’, which refers to matters such as the consequences of cancelling the visa, international obligations and any other relevant matters.
These matters include: the purpose of the visa holder’s travel to and stay in Australia; compelling reasons to remain in Australia; the extent of compliance with visa conditions; the degree of hardship that may be caused to the visa holder and any family members; the circumstances in which the ground for cancellation arose – whether there are extenuating circumstances beyond the visa holder’s control; the visa holder’s past and present behaviour towards the Department; whether there are any persons in Australia whose visas would or may be cancelled under s 140 (i.e. consequential cancellation); whether there are mandatory legal consequences to the decision (whether indefinite detention is a possible consequence in light of any non-refoulement obligations); provisions in the Act which prevent the person making a valid application without the intervention of the Minister; whether the person would become an unlawful non-citizen and liable to be detained upon cancellation; whether Australia has obligations under relevant international agreements that would be breached as a result of the visa cancellation; the impact on children of the cancellation; whether the cancellation would lead to removal in breach of Australia’s non-refoulement obligations; and any other relevant matters.
A submission dated 16 November 2023 and supporting documents were provided by the applicant on 16 November 2023. The submission provides information indicating that the most relevant discretionary factors are the circumstances in which non-compliance occurred and extenuating circumstances beyond the applicant’s control in terms of the breach. Those extenuating circumstances are that the migration agent in India engaged in fraud and of their own volition manufactured the bank records in the name of the applicant’s father without the applicant’s knowledge.
It is indicated, and evidence is provided, that the applicant’s father in India made a complaint to the police about the agent. It is indicated that the agent confessed to fraud and retaining for his own purposes 5 million rupees that had been provided to the agent for the purpose of funding the applicant’s education in Australia. Police records are provided establishing this. It is indicated, and evidence provided, that the agent refunded the 5 million rupees to the applicant’s father. Evidence is also provided from the Pakistan Federal Investigation Agency of the agent having multiple fraud complaints against him.
Evidence from another bank is provided of the applicant’s father having an account in the amount of 6,074,055 rupees. An affidavit is provided by the applicant’s father indicating that he has financial ability and will fund the applicant’s study and stay in Australia. Evidence is provided of the applicant’s father transferring funds to the applicant.
The Tribunal in the hearing confirmed that neither he nor his father knew that the incorrect information and bogus document was provided by the agent as part of the visa application.
The applicant indicated that the applicant’s father had never held an account with the bank in question. The applicant could not explain how it was that the bank subsequently indicated to the Department that the applicant’s father had held an account with the bank, but with a much reduced sum on deposit.
The applicant in the hearing indicated that he had left the arrangements for his visa to his father and it was his father who dealt with the migration agent. The Tribunal asked the applicant if he knew what it was that his father thought he was paying for when he provided the agent with the significant sum of 5 million rupees. After some questioning on this, the representative clarified that the father had been told, wrongly, that this was a deposit that needed to be paid to authorities in Australia which would be repaid at the end of studies. The representative indicates that this is what happens in Pakistan.
The Tribunal is satisfied in light of all the evidence provided that the applicant, or more particularly his father, was deceived by a fraudulent migration agent in making arrangements for the applicant’s study in Australia. The Tribunal is satisfied that the agent without knowledge of the applicant or his father provided concocted documents and provided incorrect information concerning the amount held on deposit by the applicant’s father at the bank in question. In all the circumstances, the Tribunal accepts that the main fraudulent goal of the agent was to extract the significant sum (5 million rupees) that he wrongly claimed needed to be held on deposit. The agent then through arrangements he had in place caused fraudulent information relating to financial support to be concocted and used that to make incorrect claims in terms of financial support, regardless of the actual financial support available.
Despite the Department being subsequently told by the bank that the applicant’s father had an account with the bank with a much reduced sum, the Tribunal is inclined to accept the evidence of the applicant and his father that the applicant’s father never has held an account with the bank.

The Tribunal is satisfied in light of the probative police evidence that the agent in question has been subject to a police complaint by both the applicant’s father and other clients. The Tribunal is satisfied based on probative evidence that the fraudulent agent has repaid the applicant’s father the 5 million rupees.
The fact that the Tribunal is satisfied that neither the applicant nor his father had knowledge of the incorrect information and bogus document causes the Tribunal to consider that there are extenuating circumstances beyond the applicant’s control in explaining the circumstances in which the grounds of cancellation are made out.
This weighs significantly against the Tribunal exercising its discretion to cancel the visa.
The applicant confirmed in the hearing that he arrived in Australia on 31 December 2021 after delays because of COVID-19. He studied for five months a Diploma of Information Technology but did not make good progress in this course. He then changed his study intentions to hospitality and enrolled in a Certificate IV in Commercial Cookery. The applicant has provided evidence of passing eight units in this course in November 2022.
The applicant then indicated his intention to switch education providers to the same course.
The applicant indicated that he then received the NOICC of the visa and later had the visa cancelled. This created a significant period of difficulty and unsettledness for the applicant, resulting in him effectively not studying from November 2022 until October 2023. In October 2023 the applicant reinitiated his prior studies in a Certificate IV in Kitchen Management which the representative indicated is a new name for the previous Certificate IV in Commercial Cookery. The applicant has provided evidence of this enrolment for the course commencing in October 2023 and ending in April 2025. The applicant indicates that it is then his intention to continue with a Diploma of Hospitality Management, for which a Confirmation of Enrolment has been provided.
The applicant indicates that it is then his intention to return to Pakistan and open a restaurant with financial support from his father.
The applicant indicated that it will create hardship for him if he is not able to undertake his intended studies in Australia and return to Pakistan with hospitality qualifications to facilitate his further career. The applicant and the representative referred to family disappointment and the applicant’s shame if he is not able to complete his intended studies in Australia. The representative indicated that the significant gap from the applicant’s last study in Pakistan in the context of not achieving qualifications in Australia if the visa remains cancelled creates significant hurdles in regards to the applicant being accepted into hospitality courses in Pakistan.
While there are some concerns held by the Tribunal that the applicant undertook no study between November 2022 and October 2023, the Tribunal accepts as explanation the stress and uncertainty due to the cancellation of his visa and the efforts undertaken to facilitate justice in Pakistan in relation to the fraudulent actions of the agent.
In the applicant’s favour is the fact that the applicant made good progress in his Certificate IV in Commercial Cookery up until November 2022. The Tribunal is satisfied that the applicant has effectively continued these studies in the Certificate IV in Kitchen Management from October 2023 and has reasonable prospects of continuing successfully with this course and progressing to the desired Diploma of Hospitality Management.
The Tribunal considers that it would be a quite significant hardship for the applicant if he is not able to progress in Australia with his hospitality studies as intended, which would create hardship in terms of his future career goals in Australia. The Tribunal accepts there would be significant disappointment by both the applicant and his family if this happens.
These are, in the Tribunal’s view, the key discretionary factors relevant to this case.
The Tribunal is readily persuaded that it should not exercise its discretion to cancel the visa. This is given the extenuating circumstances beyond the applicant’s control in terms of the grounds on which the cancellation is made out, and given, on the whole, the applicant’s positive study history in Australia in the hospitality field, the likelihood of the applicant being able to successfully complete intended courses, and the hardship that the applicant will face in terms of his intended career if this is not able to happen.
The Tribunal has decided that there was non-compliance by the applicant in the way described in the notice given under s 107 of the Act. Further, having regard to all the relevant circumstances, as discussed above, the Tribunal concludes that the visa should not be cancelled.
DECISION
The Tribunal sets aside the decision under review and substitutes a decision not to cancel the applicant’s Subclass 500 (Student) visa.
David McCulloch
Member

ATTACHMENT – Migration Act 1958 (extracts)
5Interpretation
(1)In this Act, unless the contrary intention appears:
bogus document, in relation to a person, means a document that the Minister reasonably suspects is a document that:
(a)     purports to have been, but was not, issued in respect of the person; or
(b)     is counterfeit or has been altered by a person who does not have authority to do so; or
(c)      was obtained because of a false or misleading statement, whether or not made knowingly.
97Interpretation
In this Subdivision:
application form, in relation to a non‑citizen, means a form on which a non‑citizen applies for a visa, being a form that regulations made for the purposes of section 46 allow to be used for making the application.
passenger card has the meaning given by subsection 506(2) and, for the purposes of section 115, includes any document provided for by regulations under paragraph 504(1)(c).
Note:Bogus document is defined in subsection 5(1).
98Completion of visa application
A non‑citizen who does not fill in his or her application form or passenger card is taken to do so if he or she causes it to be filled in or if it is otherwise filled in on his or her behalf.
99Information is answer
Any information that a non‑citizen gives or provides, causes to be given or provided, or that is given or provided on his or her behalf, to the Minister, an officer, an authorised system, a person or the Tribunal, or the Immigration Assessment authority, reviewing a decision under this Act in relation to the non‑citizen’s application for a visa is taken for the purposes of section 100, paragraphs 101(b) and 102(b) and sections 104 and 105 to be an answer to a question in the non‑citizen’s application form, whether the information is given or provided orally or in writing and whether at an interview or otherwise.
100Incorrect answers
For the purposes of this Subdivision, an answer to a question is incorrect even though the person who gave or provided the answer, or caused the answer to be given or provided, did not know that it was incorrect.
101Visa applications to be correct
A non‑citizen must fill in or complete his or her application form in such a way that:
(a)all questions on it are answered; and
(b)no incorrect answers are given or provided.
103Bogus documents not to be given etc.
A non‑citizen must not give, present, [produce]* or provide to an officer, an authorised system, the Minister, the Immigration Assessment Authority, or the Tribunal performing a function or purpose under this Act, a bogus document or cause such a document to be so given, presented, [produced]* or provided.
* This wording applies to documents given, presented, produced or provided on or after 4 November 2014: Schedule 7 to Counter Terrorism Legislation Amendment (Foreign Fighters) Act 2014 (No.116, 2014).
107Notice of incorrect applications
(1)If the Minister considers that the holder of a visa who has been immigration cleared (whether or not because of that visa) did not comply with section 101, 102, 103, 104 or 105 or with subsection (2) in a response to a notice under this section, the Minister may give the holder a notice:
(a)     giving particulars of the possible non‑compliance; and
(b)     stating that, within a period stated in the notice as mentioned in subsection (1A), the holder may give the Minister a written response to the notice that:
(i)if the holder disputes that there was non‑compliance:
(A)shows that there was compliance; and
(B)in case the Minister decides under section 108 that, in spite of the statement under sub‑subparagraph (A), there was non‑compliance—shows cause why the visa should not be cancelled; or
(ii)if the holder accepts that there was non‑compliance:
(A)give reasons for the non‑compliance; and
(B)shows cause why the visa should not be cancelled; and
(c)      stating that the Minister will consider cancelling the visa:
(i)if the holder gives the Minister oral or written notice, within the period stated as mentioned in subsection (1A), that he or she will not give a written response—when that notice is given; or
(ii)if the holder gives the Minister a written response within that period—when the response is given; or
(iii)otherwise—at the end of that period; and
(d)     setting out the effect of sections 108, 109, 111 and 112; and
(e)      informing the holder that the holder’s obligations under section 104 or 105 are not affected by the notice under this section; and
(f)      requiring the holder:
(i)to tell the Minister the address at which the holder is living; and
(ii)if the holder changes that address before the Minister notifies the holder of the Minister’s decision on whether there was non‑compliance by the holder—to tell the Minister the changed address.
(1A)The period to be stated in the notice under subsection (1) must be:
(a)     in respect of the holder of a temporary visa—the period prescribed by the regulations or, if no period is prescribed, a reasonable period; or
(b)     otherwise—14 days.
(1B)Regulations prescribing a period for the purposes of paragraph (1A)(a) may prescribe different periods and state when a particular period is to apply, which, without limiting the generality of the power, may be to:
(a)     visas of a stated class; or
(b)     visa holders in stated circumstances; or
(c)      visa holders in a stated class of people (who may be visa holders in a particular place); or
(d)     visa holders in a stated class of people (who may be visa holders in a particular place) in stated circumstances.
(2)If the visa holder responds to the notice, he or she must do so without making any incorrect statement.
108Decision about non‑compliance
The Minister is to:
(a)consider any response given by a visa holder in the way required by paragraph 107(1)(b); and
(b)decide whether there was non‑compliance by the visa holder in the way described in the notice.
109Cancellation of visa if information incorrect
(1)The Minister, after:
(a)     deciding under section 108 that there was non‑compliance by the holder of a visa; and
(b)     considering any response to the notice about the non‑compliance given in a way required by paragraph 107(1)(b); and
(c)      having regard to any prescribed circumstances;
may cancel the visa.
(2)If the Minister may cancel a visa under subsection (1), the Minister must do so if there exist circumstances declared by the regulations to be circumstances in which a visa must be cancelled.

[2024] AATA 633

31 January 2024

Key Legal Topics

Areas of Law

Immigration

Administrative Law

Statutory Interpretation

Legal Concepts

Judicial Review

Procedural Fairness

Statutory Construction

Remedies

Natural Justice