Speight (Migration)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal, constituted by Catherine Carney-Orsborn, considered the cancellation of a Working Holiday (Temporary) (Class TZ) visa, Subclass 417. The applicant had applied for an extension of this visa, claiming to have completed six months of specified work in a regional area. However, subsequent verification checks by the Department indicated that the applicant had not, in fact, worked for the employer they nominated. The applicant failed to respond to the Department's notice of intention to cancel the visa or to an invitation to comment from the Tribunal.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicant had failed to comply with the requirements of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth), specifically section 101(b), by providing incorrect information in their visa extension application. This non-compliance, if established, would engage the Minister's power to cancel the visa under section 109 of the Act, provided a valid notice under section 107 had been issued. The Tribunal was required to determine if the section 107 notice issued by the delegate was valid and if the particulars of non-compliance it contained were substantiated.

The Tribunal found that the delegate had reached the necessary state of mind to engage section 107 and that the notice issued complied with the statutory requirements. The Tribunal was satisfied that the applicant had indeed failed to comply with section 101(b) of the Act. This conclusion was based on the applicant's assertion of having worked for Pearl Recruitment Group (WA) Pty Ltd from 13 January 2020 to 2 August 2020, which was contradicted by confirmation from the employer that the applicant never worked for them. The Tribunal noted that the applicant did not respond to the Department's section 107 notice or provide any evidence to refute the employer's statement.

Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the decision to cancel the applicant's visa.