Visa Cancelled Due to Counterfeit Document with Incorrect Information
The Applicants’ visa was cancelled on the basis that the primary applicant submitted a counterfeit document with incorrect information (forged English test result) on - his visa application. Although the Applicants claimed that they were totally unaware that the information forwarded to the Department by their agent was bogus, the Tribunal has concluded that the decision to cancel the applicant’s visa should be affirmed.
As the Tribunal has decided that there was non-compliance in the way described in the notice given to the applicant under s.107 of the Act, it is necessary to consider whether the visa should be cancelled pursuant to s.109(1). Cancellation in this context is discretionary. The Tribunal has considered the following factors in exercising the power.
(a) the correct information;
(b) the content of the genuine document (if any);
(c) whether the decision to grant a visa or immigration clear the visa holder was based, wholly or partly, on incorrect information or a bogus document;
(d) the circumstances in which the non-compliance occurred;
(e) the present circumstances of the visa holder;
(f) the subsequent behaviour of the visa holder concerning his or her obligations under Subdivision C of Division 3 of Part 2 of the Act;
(g) any other instances of non-compliance by the visa holder known to the Minister;
(h) the time that has elapsed since the non-compliance;
(j) any breaches of the law since the non-compliance and the seriousness of those breaches; and
(k) any contribution made by the holder to the community.
In this case, the applicant’s claim that he was not party to immigration fraud or misinformation and that he was all the while an innocent who was duped by his rogue agent. However, the immigration fraud was discovered by the Department nearly 4 years later after investigation. Therefore, the Tribunal is not satisfied that his claim holds weight.
Despite the applicant’s previous claims to the delegate of personal innocence, hardship and a general wish to remain in Australia permanently - the Tribunal gives little weight to these claims as a basis for not cancelling the primary applicant’s visa.
The applicant’s arrival in Australia, plainly, was based on proven fraud and misinformation. The Tribunal gives significant weight to the importance of maintaining the integrity of the Australian migration program.
Based on the reasons above, the applicant’s mitigating claims for not affirming the decision do not outweigh the reasons in favour of cancellation. The Tribunal, therefore, affirms the decision to cancel the first named applicant’s Subclass 457 (Temporary Work (Skilled)) visa.
How Can Agape Henry Help
At Agape Henry Crux, our Accredited Specialist Immigration Lawyers and our team of immigration lawyers and migration agents are well trained to handle highly complex matters. You can book one of our lawyers or agents to seek professional advice by calling 02-72002700 or email us to book in a time at info@ahclawyers.com.
We speak fluent English, Korean, Burmese, Mandarin, Cantonese, Indonesian, and Malay. If these aren’t your language, we can also help you arrange an interpreter.
This article/presentation (“publication”) does not deal extensively with important topics or changes in law and is not intended to be relied upon as a substitute for legal or other advice that may be relevant to the reader's specific circumstances. If you find this publication of interest and would like to know more or wish to obtain legal advice relevant to your circumstances please contact our office.