Wilson (Migration)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal reviewed a decision to cancel the Subclass 417 (Working Holiday) (Extension) visa of the applicant, Mr. Wilson. The cancellation was based on the delegate's belief that the applicant had provided incorrect information in his visa application, specifically regarding the completion of six months of specified work in regional Australia. The applicant contended that the work he completed met the criteria and that any inaccuracies in his application were unintentional and arose from circumstances beyond his control.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicant had failed to comply with section 101(b) of the Migration Act 1958, which requires that no incorrect answers be given in a visa application. This non-compliance was particularised in a Notice of Intention to Consider Cancellation (NOITCC) issued by the delegate. The Tribunal was required to determine if the information provided by the applicant was indeed incorrect and, if so, whether the visa should be cancelled.

The Tribunal reasoned that while the applicant's application contained incorrect information regarding the specified work, this non-compliance did not warrant visa cancellation. The Tribunal found that if the correct information had been provided, the applicant would have been entitled to the immigration benefit he received. Furthermore, the Tribunal considered the circumstances surrounding the non-compliance, including the applicant's limited computer literacy, reliance on a third party for assistance with his visa application, and the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on his employment situation. These factors weighed in favour of setting aside the cancellation decision.

Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the decision to cancel the applicant's Subclass 417 (Working Holiday) visa and substituted a decision not to cancel the visa.