Zhu (Migration)

This matter concerned an appeal by Mr Anpeng Zhu against a decision to cancel his Subclass 187 – Regional Sponsored Migration Scheme visa. The cancellation was based on the Department's assessment that Mr Zhu had provided incorrect information regarding the date of his separation from his former wife, Ms Wang, which was relevant to his visa application. The core of the dispute revolved around whether Mr Zhu had failed to notify the Department of a change in circumstances, specifically the breakdown of his relationship with Ms Wang, as required by section 104 of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth).

The legal issues before the Tribunal were whether Mr Zhu had failed to comply with his notification obligations under section 104 of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth) by providing incorrect information about the date of his separation from Ms Wang, and if so, whether his visa should be cancelled. The Department's primary decision record indicated that the divorce order between Mr Zhu and Ms Wang was filed on 14 July 2015, and under section 48(2) of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth), this required the parties to have separated and lived apart for a continuous period of at least 12 months immediately preceding that date. This led the delegate to conclude that separation occurred by at least 14 July 2014. However, Mr Zhu contended that his former agent mistranslated the date of separation as "in 2014" instead of "in 2015" in a supporting document, and that Ms Wang had mistakenly stated the separation date as April or May 2014 when contacted by the Department.

The Tribunal considered the evidence presented, including statements from Mr Zhu and oral evidence from Ms Wang. Ms Wang stated that she moved to Adelaide in December 2013 and that the applicant visited her there on several occasions, with the last visit being in January 2015. She also stated that she travelled to Melbourne on more than 10 but less than 20 occasions between December 2013 and March 2015, with her last visit to be with Mr Zhu being in March 2015. Crucially, Ms Wang testified that she and Mr Zhu did not discuss divorce on that occasion and that she only learned of his new wife earlier that year. The Tribunal found that the evidence did not establish non-compliance by Mr Zhu with his notification obligations. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the decision under review and substituted a decision not to cancel Mr Zhu's Subclass 187 visa.