Wang (Migration)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (Cth) considered the case of Wang, who sought review of the Minister's decision to cancel her Subclass 417 (Working Holiday) (Extension) visa. The dispute arose from an alleged incorrect answer provided in her visa application concerning specified work undertaken in regional Australia. The applicant claimed her migration agent lodged an unauthorised repeat application, and raised credibility issues, but had not contacted the Department to correct the initial answer.

The Tribunal was required to determine whether the applicant had failed to comply with section 101 of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth) by providing an incorrect answer in her visa application, and if so, whether the visa should be cancelled. Specifically, the Tribunal had to assess if the applicant had truthfully declared undertaking the required three months of specified work in regional Australia, as this was a condition for the grant of her extension visa.

The Tribunal affirmed the decision to cancel the visa, finding that the applicant had provided an incorrect answer in her application regarding specified work in regional Australia. The Tribunal was satisfied that the delegate had issued a valid notice under section 107 of the Act, detailing the alleged non-compliance with section 101. The Tribunal noted that section 100 of the Act provides that an answer is incorrect even if the applicant was unaware of its incorrectness. Despite the applicant's claims regarding her agent and return visits to Taiwan, the Tribunal found no evidence to support these assertions or to suggest she had attempted to correct the information with the Department.

The Tribunal affirmed the decision to cancel the applicant’s Subclass 417 (Working Holiday) visa.