She (Migration)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal reviewed a decision to cancel the Skilled Nominated (Permanent) (Class SN) visa of the applicant. The dispute centred on allegations that the applicant had provided bogus documents and incorrect information in support of his visa application, specifically concerning his de facto relationship with the primary visa applicant.

The Tribunal was required to determine whether the applicant had failed to comply with the provisions of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth), specifically whether he had provided bogus documents or incorrect information, and if so, whether the visa cancellation was warranted. The notice of cancellation alleged non-compliance by stating that the applicant and the primary visa applicant were not in a de facto relationship as claimed, that bank statements provided had been fraudulently altered, and that the applicant had failed to declare complete and correct information.

The Tribunal found that the bank statements provided by the applicant had been digitally altered, constituting bogus documents, and that the applicant had not been residing with the primary visa applicant at the claimed address. It concluded that the non-compliance was deliberate and intentional, and that the applicant bore ultimate responsibility for the accuracy of the documents submitted, despite his claims of an agent's involvement. However, the Tribunal also considered the applicant's current circumstances, including a new, legitimate relationship with a partner who was high-risk pregnant and the financial strain this placed on them.

Ultimately, the Tribunal set aside the decision to cancel the applicant's visa. While acknowledging the seriousness of the non-compliance and the basis upon which the visa was granted, the Tribunal exercised its discretion in favour of the applicant, taking into account his current personal circumstances and the potential hardship of returning to China, particularly given his partner's high-risk pregnancy.