Singh (Migration)

This matter concerned an appeal by Mr. Singh against the cancellation of his Skilled Regional Sponsored (Provisional) (Class GK) visa, Subclass 489. The cancellation was based on allegations of providing incorrect information regarding his employment history in his visa application, specifically concerning concurrent work as a taxi driver. The Tribunal was required to determine whether the applicant had failed to comply with the requirements of section 101(b) of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth) by providing incorrect answers in his visa application.

The Tribunal considered the provisions of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth), particularly sections 100 and 101, which deal with incorrect answers in visa applications. Section 101 requires that all questions on an application form be answered and that no incorrect answers be given. Section 100 clarifies that an answer is considered incorrect even if the applicant was unaware of its inaccuracy. The Tribunal also had regard to the process outlined in section 107, which governs the issuing of notices regarding potential non-compliance and the subsequent consideration of responses under section 108 before a visa may be cancelled under section 109.

In its reasoning, the Tribunal found that the applicant had not provided incorrect information in the manner alleged. It was noted that the applicant had obtained a skills assessment and that employer-verified work rosters were presented. Based on these findings, the Tribunal concluded that there was no non-compliance with section 101(b) as described in the notice issued under section 107. Consequently, the discretionary power to cancel the applicant's visa did not arise. The Tribunal set aside the decision to cancel the visa and substituted a decision not to cancel the applicant's Subclass 489 visa. The Tribunal also noted it had no jurisdiction concerning other applicants.