Yeung (Migration)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (the Tribunal) considered the case of Mr Yeung, who sought review of the decision to cancel his Subclass 500 student visa. The cancellation was based on allegations of non-compliance with the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (the Act). The Tribunal was required to determine whether the applicant had provided incorrect information in a previous application for a Subclass 417 Working Holiday visa, and if so, whether this warranted the cancellation of his current visa.

The central legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicant had breached section 101(b) of the Act by providing incorrect answers in his Subclass 417 visa application. Specifically, the Tribunal examined the applicant's answers to questions regarding whether he had undertaken specified work in regional Australia for three months, the industry in which this work occurred, and whether he possessed approved evidence of this work. The Tribunal also considered the validity of the Notice of Intention to Consider Cancellation (NOICC) issued under section 107 of the Act.

The Tribunal reasoned that section 109 of the Act permits the Minister to cancel a visa if the holder has failed to comply with certain provisions, including section 101, which requires that no incorrect answers be given in a visa application. The Tribunal found that the NOICC issued to the applicant complied with the statutory requirements of section 107. Crucially, the Tribunal determined that the applicant had provided incorrect information in his Subclass 417 visa application, as evidenced by the questions and his affirmative answers concerning specified regional work. Section 100 of the Act clarifies that an answer is incorrect even if the applicant was unaware of its inaccuracy. Furthermore, section 107A allows for the cancellation of a current visa due to non-compliance with a previous visa.

The Tribunal affirmed the decision to cancel the applicant's Subclass 500 visa.