Sun (Migration)

This matter concerned a review of the decision to cancel the first applicant's Subclass 165 (State/Territory Sponsored Investor (Provisional)) visa. The dispute arose from alleged incorrect information provided in the visa application process, specifically concerning the source of funds intended for the designated investment. The case was heard by Bridget Cullen, a Member of the Tribunal.

The primary legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the applicant had failed to comply with section 101(b) of the Migration Act 1958 by providing incorrect information in her visa application and, if so, whether the visa should be cancelled. The notice issued under section 107 of the Act particularised the alleged non-compliance as incorrect answers given in relation to the source of funds for the designated investment, stating that the funds were unencumbered and derived from property sales, when in fact, borrowed funds were used and the property had not been disposed of.

The Tribunal found that the notice issued under section 107 complied with statutory requirements and that the applicant had indeed provided incorrect information regarding the source of her funds. The Tribunal noted that section 100 of the Act states that an answer is incorrect even if the applicant did not know it was incorrect. Furthermore, the Tribunal considered the applicant's temporary visa status and the fact that it would have expired more than a year prior, indicating a limited expectation of permanent residency. No efforts were made by the applicant to rectify the situation by providing a new statement of the source of funds.

The Tribunal affirmed the decision to cancel the applicant's visa, finding that the non-compliance was material to the grant of the visa. The Tribunal also noted that it had no jurisdiction with respect to the other applicants.