Webster (Migration)

This matter concerned an appeal by the applicant against the cancellation of their Subclass 417 (Working Holiday) visa. The dispute arose from incorrect information provided by the applicant in a second extension application, specifically regarding six months of specified work allegedly undertaken while holding their first extension. Verification checks indicated that this claimed work had not been undertaken. The Tribunal was required to determine whether the applicant had failed to comply with the requirements of the Migration Act 1958 and, if so, whether the visa should be cancelled.

The Tribunal considered whether the applicant had engaged in non-compliance as particularised in the notice issued under section 107 of the Act. The notice identified non-compliance with section 101(b) of the Act, alleging the applicant had provided incorrect information about having worked for a specific recruitment group during a defined period. The applicant acknowledged knowingly providing this false information, having used a third party to falsify their work history. The Tribunal found that a valid notice under section 107 had been issued and that the applicant had indeed non-complied with section 101 of the Act.

Having established non-compliance, the Tribunal then considered the discretionary power to cancel the visa under section 109(1) of the Act. This involved assessing the applicant's response to the notice and having regard to prescribed circumstances, including the correct information, the circumstances of the non-compliance, the applicant's present circumstances, and subsequent behaviour. While acknowledging factors such as COVID-19 restrictions limiting work opportunities and the applicant's subsequent work after the application, the Tribunal ultimately affirmed the decision to cancel the visa.