ZENG (Migration)

This matter concerned an appeal by the applicant, Zeng, against the decision to cancel his Subclass 417 (Working Holiday) visa. The dispute arose from the applicant's answers provided in his visa application, specifically regarding whether he had undertaken specified work in regional Australia. The applicant had answered "Yes" to this question and provided details of employment in postcode 2450 between January and April 2017. Based on this information, his visa was granted. However, subsequent information suggested he had not undertaken regional work as claimed. The decision was reviewed by Senior Member Louise Nicholls of the Tribunal.

The primary legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the applicant had failed to comply with the requirements of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth) by providing incorrect answers in his visa application, and if so, whether the cancellation of his visa was warranted. The Tribunal was required to determine if the delegate had properly engaged the cancellation power under section 109 of the Act, which necessitates a valid notice under section 107 detailing the alleged non-compliance. The Tribunal also had to consider the applicant's response to the notice of intention to cancel.

The Tribunal reasoned that the applicant had indeed failed to comply with section 101 of the Act, which mandates that visa applications must be completed without incorrect answers. It found that the notice issued under section 107 complied with statutory requirements and that the applicant's assertion of having undertaken three months of specified regional work was incorrect. The Tribunal noted that section 100 of the Act clarifies that an answer is considered incorrect even if the applicant was unaware of its inaccuracy. Having found non-compliance, and having considered all relevant circumstances, the Tribunal concluded that the visa cancellation was appropriate.

The Tribunal affirmed the decision to cancel the applicant’s Subclass 417 (Working Holiday) visa.