Shoyeb Ahmed (Migration)

This matter concerned an application for review of a decision by a delegate of the Minister for Immigration to cancel the Subclass 500 (Student) visa of Mr Shoyeb Ahmed, an Indian national. The cancellation was based on allegations that Mr Ahmed had provided a bogus bank education loan document and incorrect information regarding his financial support in his visa application, thereby breaching sections 103 and 101(b) of the *Migration Act 1958* (the Act). Mr Ahmed had arrived in Australia in September 2017 to study a Master of Science in Biotechnology, but failed to complete any units. He subsequently commenced a Master of Networking in February 2019, completing half of the course before his visa was cancelled in November 2019.

The primary legal issues before the Tribunal were whether Mr Ahmed had failed to comply with sections 101(b) and 103 of the Act, as alleged by the delegate, and if so, whether the visa cancellation decision should be affirmed. Section 101(b) of the Act requires visa applicants to ensure that no incorrect answers are given in their application, while section 103 prohibits the provision of bogus documents. A document is considered bogus if the Minister reasonably suspects it purports to have been issued in respect of the person but was not, has been counterfeited or altered by an unauthorised person, or was obtained due to a false or misleading statement.

The Tribunal reasoned that the evidence presented by the Department of Immigration, including validation checks from the State Bank of India, strongly indicated that the bank education loan document provided by Mr Ahmed was counterfeit. Specifically, the bank manager who purportedly signed the document had already left the branch at the time of its dating, the reference number did not follow the bank's usual coding, and the provided phone number was a fax line. Consequently, the Tribunal was satisfied that the document was bogus under section 5(1)(b) of the Act. This finding led the Tribunal to conclude that Mr Ahmed had provided incorrect information regarding his financial support, thus breaching section 101(b) of the Act.

Having found that Mr Ahmed had failed to comply with both sections 101(b) and 103 of the Act, the Tribunal affirmed the delegate's decision to cancel his visa. Mr Ahmed, who was represented by a registered migration agent, had the opportunity to present evidence and arguments, including through a telephone hearing conducted during the COVID-19 pandemic, with the assistance of an interpreter.