Wong (Migration)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) considered the cancellation of the applicant's Subclass 457 (Temporary Work (Skilled)) visa. The dispute arose from allegations that the applicant had provided incorrect information in a previous Working Holiday visa application, which subsequently led to the cancellation of his current visa.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicant had failed to comply with section 101(b) of the Migration Act 1958 by providing incorrect answers in his application for a Subclass 417 Working Holiday (Extension) visa. The Tribunal also had to determine if the notice issued under section 107 of the Act, detailing the alleged non-compliance, was valid and if the cancellation of the applicant's current visa was warranted under section 109 of the Act.

The Tribunal reasoned that section 109 of the Act permits the cancellation of a visa if the holder has failed to comply with certain provisions, including section 101, which requires visa applicants to provide correct information. It was established that section 107A allows for the cancellation of a current visa based on non-compliance with a previous visa. The Tribunal found that the applicant had provided an incorrect answer regarding his work in a regional area in his Working Holiday visa application, as he had not worked for ABR Farming Pty Ltd during the specified period. This non-compliance was particularised in the section 107 notice, which the Tribunal found to be valid.

The Tribunal affirmed the decision to cancel the applicant's Subclass 457 visa. While the cancellation power under section 109 is discretionary, the Tribunal considered the applicant's response to the notice and the prescribed circumstances. It concluded that the incorrect information provided regarding the regional work requirement was significant, and therefore, the cancellation of the visa was appropriate.