SIDHU (Migration)

This matter concerned the review of a decision to cancel the applicant's Subclass 457 (Temporary Work (Skilled)) visa. The applicant, an Indian citizen, had applied for the visa in May 2016, nominating Vir Pty Ltd as his sponsor. The cancellation was based on allegations of non-compliance with section 101(b) of the Migration Act 1958, which requires visa applicants to provide correct information. Specifically, the Department alleged that the applicant had provided incorrect details regarding his employment history, including working for a company that had been deregistered and after the relevant restaurant had closed.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicant had provided incorrect information in his visa application and supporting documents, and if so, whether this warranted the cancellation of his visa. The Tribunal was required to determine if the applicant had failed to comply with section 101(b) of the Act, as particularised in the notice issued under section 107. This involved examining the dates of employment, the status of the employing companies, and the applicant's knowledge of these facts at the time of application and thereafter.

The Tribunal found that while the applicant had provided incorrect information regarding his employment dates and the status of his employer, the decision to cancel his visa should be set aside. The Tribunal was satisfied that the notice issued under section 107 complied with statutory requirements and that the applicant had responded to it. However, the Tribunal ultimately substituted a decision not to cancel the visa, implying that despite the incorrect information, the circumstances did not justify cancellation. The Tribunal did not accept the applicant's assertion that he only became aware of the inaccuracies when notified by the Department.