So (Migration)

This matter concerned an appeal before the Tribunal regarding the cancellation of the applicant's Subclass 189 Skilled Independent visa. The cancellation was based on allegations of providing bogus documents, specifically altered bank statements and telephone bills, which were submitted as evidence of a genuine de facto relationship with Mr. Renhao Liu. The applicant had been granted the visa on 27 October 2016, with Mr. Liu included as her de facto partner, based on information provided in her application dated 12 May 2016.

The primary legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the applicant had failed to comply with section 103 of the Migration Act 1958 by providing bogus documents, and if so, whether the visa should be cancelled. The Tribunal was required to determine if the documents submitted, namely Vodafone mobile phone bills and St George Bank statements, were indeed bogus as defined by the Act, which includes documents that are counterfeit or have been altered by an unauthorised person, or obtained due to a false or misleading statement. The Tribunal also considered the validity of the notice issued under section 107 of the Act, which particulars the alleged non-compliance.

The Tribunal found that the delegate had reached the necessary state of mind to engage section 107 and that the notice issued complied with statutory requirements. A forensic examination had revealed that the residential addresses on the submitted bank statements and telephone bills did not match the officially registered addresses for those documents, leading the Tribunal to conclude that the applicant had indeed engaged in non-compliance as described in the section 107 notice. However, after considering all relevant circumstances, including the impact on the applicant's business and the emotional and financial hardship that cancellation would cause, the Tribunal concluded that the visa should not be cancelled.

Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the decision under review and substituted a decision not to cancel the applicant's Subclass 189 Skilled Independent visa. The Tribunal noted it had no jurisdiction with respect to another applicant.