Wang (Migration)

This matter concerned the cancellation of the applicant's Subclass 155 (Five Year Resident Return) visa. The Department's delegate had concluded that the applicant had provided incorrect answers and submitted a bogus document in support of her subclass 186 (Employer Nomination Scheme) visa application, leading to its cancellation under section 109 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth). The applicant disputed these findings, asserting that her employment and nomination by Cawarra Cosmetics Pty Ltd were genuine.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the applicant had failed to comply with sections 101(b) and 103 of the Act by providing false or misleading information or documents, and consequently, whether her visa was liable for cancellation. Specifically, the delegate found that the employment offer letter was a bogus document, as investigations revealed the named business owner had no record of sponsoring workers or dealing with the Department, and the purported employee had never worked for the company.

The court considered the applicant's detailed explanation of her engagement with Shanghai Overseas Chinese Exit Entry Services Co Ltd (SOCEES), a state-owned recruitment agency, and her belief in the genuineness of the employment offer. The applicant provided evidence, including statutory declarations from SOCEES employees and emails, to support her claim that she had genuinely applied for and been offered a position. She also detailed her subsequent difficulties in commencing employment, including the sponsor business failing to meet her upon arrival in Australia and subsequently indicating they might not be able to offer her the job due to changing business circumstances. The court noted that the applicant's migration agent also believed the nomination and visa application were genuine.

The decision under review was set aside.