1. In her response to the NOICC the applicant refers to her marriage to the Australian citizen and their cohabitation since 2019. In her evidence to the Tribunal the applicant states that she plays a 'vital role' in managing the household's financial responsibilities with her partner. They hold a joint mortgage and she is instrumental in meeting repayments and her financial support is instrumental in meeting the household expenses. The applicant states that if her visa is cancelled, her husband would be forced to shoulder the financial burden and his income may not be adequate to cover all the expenses and she told the Tribunal she is scared that her husband may lose the family home. The applicant refers to her husband's decline in income due to the recent change of employment and states that if her partner gets the new job, his income would be unstable and he might not be able to pay the mortgage. The Tribunal accepts that if the applicant was to leave Australia as a result of her visa being cancelled, this may have significant financial repercussions for her family and may cause financial hardship to the applicant's partner.
2. The applicant refers to the emotional strain on her partner, should her visa be cancelled. She also refers to the crucial role she plays in supporting her husband's elderly parents and the applicant provided evidence concerning their health and the need for ongoing support. A report by Dr Iy confirms that the applicant provides care and support to her mother in law. The applicant told the Tribunal that she is the primary carer for her mother in law, she cooks for her, does cleaning and laundry and buys groceries and takes her to doctor appointments. The Tribunal accepts that evidence.
3. The applicant also states that her support for her parents in law allows her husband to continue working and due to his own health conditions, her husband cannot act as a carer, so there are no other carers available. She told the Tribunal about her partner's health stating that he cannot look after his mother. She said that her mother in law does not trust outside help and has not applied for a Home Care Package. The Tribunal accepts that the applicant provides significant care to her parents in law and the Tribunal is prepared to accept that at present, she acts as the primary caregiver (subject to her work commitments) and that other care has not been explored and is not presently available. The Tribunal is prepared to accept that the applicant's spouse has limited ability to support his parents and that he may give up full-time employment if he was to take on the carer role.
4. The applicant refers to her study in Australia and her employment and income. The applicant refers to her important role in the company and the payment of taxes. She states that she is an 'essential worker'. In her evidence to the Tribunal the applicant states that she is employed as a business manager and her role is vital to the efficient functioning of the company. The applicant provided employment references from her current and past employer. The Tribunal accepts the applicant's evidence concerning her employment and contribution to the company. As the applicant has the option of leaving her employer at any time, the Tribunal is of the view that it is highly likely the company would have arrangements in place for the replacement of staff, including 'essential' employees. Nevertheless, the Tribunal accepts the applicant's evidence about her employment and contribution to the employers and to the community through employment.
5. The applicant refers to her settlement in Australia and the relationships and ties she has formed in this country. The Tribunal accepts that the applicant has been living in Australia for a number of years and that she has strong family, community, employment and social ties.

The subsequent behaviour of the visa holder concerning his or her obligations under Subdivision C of Division 3 of Part 2 of the Act

1. Nothing adverse is known about the applicant's behaviour concerning her obligations under the Act. The applicant has conceded her non-compliance in the response to the NOICC and evidence to the Tribunal.

Any other instances of non-compliance by the visa holder known to the Minister

1. The applicant told the Tribunal that she obtained the birth certificate in the new identity with the help of a friend and she did not change her name through a formal process. She also concedes that her birth certificate contains an incorrect date of birth and she told the Tribunal that had to pay extra to get the birth certificate.
2. The Tribunal finds that the applicant was aware that the birth certificate was bogus document (because it is counterfeit or has been altered by a person who does not have authority to do so). The applicant also told the Tribunal that she obtained her passport on the basis of the birth certificate and the Tribunal finds that her passport is a bogus document as it was issued on the basis of a false or misleading statement. The Tribunal finds that the applicant gave bogus documents (birth certificate and passport) with her various visa applications and that indicates non-compliance with s. 103 of the Act.

The time that has elapsed since the non-compliance

1. The first visa application was made in 2016 and the most recent submission of documents occurred in March 2022. About nine years passed since the first non-compliance and about three years since the most recent non-compliance.
2. In her submission to the Tribunal the applicant states that other than the act of changing her name, she has followed the law and respects the law and is of good character. In the Tribunal's view, that claim shows a misunderstanding by the applicant of her non-compliance. As noted above, the issue is not the change of name, but the applicant's persistent failure to disclose that information and her immigration history and the provision of incorrect answers in various visa applications.

Any breaches of the law since the non-compliance and the seriousness of those breaches

Any contribution made by the holder to the community.

1. The applicant refers to her employment as an essential worker and the contribution she has made to her employer, as well as through the payment of taxes. The applicant refers to her past study, leading to her employment. The applicant refers to the contribution she has made within the family, including in supporting her partner and parents in law. The Tribunal accepts the applicant has contributed to the community through her employment, payment of taxes, support for the elderly parents in law, and various financial contributions.
2. The applicant refers to the contribution to the household expenses such as strata and household expenses0 and the payment for the mortgage. While the Tribunal accepts that the applicant makes these payments, the Tribunal does not consider such payments constitute contribution to the community.
3. While these factors must be considered, they do not represent an exhaustive statement of the circumstances that might properly be considered to be relevant in any given case: MIAC v Khadgi [2010] FCAFC 145; (2010) 190 FCR 248. The Tribunal may also have regard to lawful government policy. The relevant policy is set out in the Department's Procedural Advice Manual) PAM3 'General visa cancellation powers', which refers to matters such as the consequences of cancelling the visa, international obligations and any other relevant matters.

Whether there would be consequential cancellations under s 140.

1. There are no persons whose visas would be subject to consequential cancellation.

If there are children whose interests would be affected by cancellation, or consequential cancellation, decision-makers should consider the best interests of those children as a primary consideration when deciding whether to cancel the visa.

1. There are no children who would be affected by the cancellation of the visa.

Whether the cancellation would lead to the person's removal in breach of Australia's non-refoulement or family unity obligations.

1. The applicant refers to experiencing discrimination in Indonesia due to her Chinese ethnicity. The Tribunal found the applicant's claims to be generalised in nature and addressing the circumstances of the Chinese minority as a whole, rather than her own circumstances. The Tribunal is not satisfied on the basis of these generalised statements that Australia's non-protection obligations engaged in this case.
2. The Tribunal also notes that the applicant has had multiple opportunities to seek protection in Australia. She has not done so. In the Tribunal's view, if the applicant had a genuine fear of harm, she would have sought protection in Australia. Significantly, the primary decision record incites that when the applicant was interviewed in 2015 prior to her removal, she expressly stated that she had no fear of harm upon returning to Indonesia. The applicant's explanation concerning her lack of understanding has been addressed (and rejected) above.
3. The applicant told the Tribunal that she does not wish to return to Indonesia as she has not been there for many years and her family and responsibilities are in Australia. In the Tribunal's view, these matters do not give rise to Australia's non-refoulement obligations.
4. In her submission to the Tribunal dated 30 June 2025, the applicant does not raise any claims that may give rise to non-refoulement obligations. In the course of the hearing the applicant's representative also confirmed that non-refoulement claims are not made by the applicant. On the evidence before it, the Tribunal does not consider that Australia's non-refoulement obligations arise in this case. The Tribunal is also mindful that the applicant is eligible to seek a protection visa if she genuinely has any fear of harm.
5. As for the principles of family unity, the Tribunal notes that the applicant is eligible to seek other visas to enable her to return to Australia in the future and be reunited with her partner. The Tribunal does not consider that the family unity obligations would be breached as a result of the cancellation.

Whether there are mandatory legal consequences, such as whether the person would become unlawful and liable to detention and removal, whether detention is a likely consequence of the cancellation decision and if so, for how long, and whether there are provisions in the Act which prevent the person from making a valid application for any visa without the Minister personally intervening.

1. If the applicant's visa is cancelled, and unless she is granted another visa, the applicant will become an unlawful non-citizen and could be detained and removed from Australia. The applicant would have limited options to make other visa applications onshore due to the operation of s 48 and would be subject to an exclusion period in PIC 4013 in relation to some future visa applications. The applicant will also lose the entitlements she has acquired as a permanent resident of Australia and will not be eligible for Australian citizenship if her visa is cancelled.

Any other relevant matters (including the degree of hardship that may be caused to the visa holder and any family members).

1. For the reasons set out above, the Tribunal accepts that considerable hardship would be caused to the applicant and her family in Australia if her visa is cancelled and if she has to leave Australia as a result. In particular, the Tribunal accepts that the applicant's spouse relies on her financially and may experience significant financial hardship if the applicant is not able to contribute financially to household expenses. The Tribunal accepts the evidence about the health of the applicant's spouse and parents and accepts that the applicant acting as a primary caregiver to her mother in law and accepts that the applicant's departure from Australia may result in the removal of practical and physical assistance that she provides. That would also cause significant hardship to the family in Australia.
2. The applicant provided with her submission to the Tribunal a character reference and the Tribunal accepts that the writer believes the applicant to be a person of good character.
3. The applicant has expressed regret and remorse about the provision of incorrect answers. The Tribunal finds that evidence problematic, noting that the remorse has only been expressed in response to the NOICC or since it was issued. Given the lengthy time since the initial non-compliance, the applicant had ample time to express remorse for her conduct and take steps to rectify it by informing Immigration about her non-compliance. She has not done so, instead repeating the same falsehoods in multiple subsequent visa applications and she told the Tribunal she was too scared of being removed from Australia and that is the reason she has not made contact with Immigration.
4. The delegate also refers to the applicant's past non-compliance with condition 8202 while a holder of a Student visa and the applicant told the Tribunal that she could not study due to financial stress and emotional hardship. She claims she did not know how to approach anyone to resolve the situation. The primary decision record indicates that the applicant had overstayed her visas twice when previously in Australia, including for a lengthy period exceeding four years. In the Tribunal's view, such conduct indicates the applicant's general disregard for the Australian immigration laws.
5. The applicant told the Tribunal that her first overstay was in 1998 during the riots in Indonesia and she was too scared to return. The applicant states that she did not make any inquiries about regularising her status during the period of her unlawful stay. The applicant told the Tribunal that during the second period of overstay, she went through difficult time emotionally and financially and could not attend school. The applicant states that she was alone and did not know what she was doing and had no knowledge of how to deal with the situation. In the Tribunal's view, none of these matters (even if true) justify her unlawful stay.
6. The applicant states that she acted out of fear and not to manipulate the system. The Tribunal does not accept that evidence, noting that by the time the applicant was making multiple visa applications in Australia, she was not subjected to any harm in Australia and in the Tribunal's view, there was no justification for the persistent provision of incorrect information in multiple visa applications.
7. The applicant's partner Mr Cheung told the Tribunal that the applicant changed her name to avoid the harm in Indonesia and he was not aware of that until the NOICC was issued.
8. The Tribunal has considered the totality of the applicant's circumstances. The Tribunal has found that the applicant has not complied with s. 101 of the Act and that there are grounds for cancelling her visa.
9. The Tribunal considers that there are strong grounds why the visa should not be cancelled. In particular, the Tribunal accepts that significant hardship would be caused to the applicant and her family in Australia as a result of the cancellation. That includes financial, practical, emotional and other forms of hardship. The Tribunal accepts that the applicant contributes to the household expenses and mortgage repayments and acknowledges the applicant's evidence that her partner may not have sufficient income to meet these on his own. The Tribunal accepts that the applicant is a primary caregiver for her mother in law. The Tribunal is prepared to accept, for the purpose of this review, that the applicant and her partner are in a genuine and long term relationship. The Tribunal accepts the applicant's evidence about the hardship that would be caused to her and others by the cancellation and finds that this consideration weighs heavily against the cancellation.
10. The Tribunal accepts that the applicant is settled in Australia and her present circumstances evidence her settlement in this country. She has meaningful and gainful employment, a relationship with an Australian citizen partner, and supports his family. The Tribunal accepts that the applicant's present circumstances are such that these may justify the setting aside of the cancellation. A number of years passed since the non-compliance. The Tribunal also accepts that the applicant has made a contribution to Australia through her employment, payment of taxes, carer responsibilities and other activities. This also weighs against the cancellation.
11. The Tribunal acknowledges that there would be serious legal consequences to the cancellation, in particular limiting the applicant's future visa options. All these factors weigh heavily against the visa cancellation.
12. There are a number of considerations that are neutral. Thus, the Tribunal has determined that the cancellation will not breach Australia's international obligations and there are no consequential cancellations.
13. The Tribunal also finds that there are very strong reasons in favour of the cancellation. Firstly, the Tribunal gives significant weight to the circumstances in which the non-compliance occurred. The Tribunal has found that the applicant had deliberately withheld information about her different identity and previous residence in Australia in a number of visa applications. She had done so over a period of about five years. The Tribunal does not accept the applicant's explanation that she had done so due to the fear of persecution in Indonesia due to her Chinese ethnicity. This is because the applicant had denied having any fear of persecution in her 2015 interview, because many of the applications in question were made in Australia and not in Indonesia and because the applicant changed her entire identity (including her date of birth and not only her name). The Tribunal has also formed the view that the applicant was aware of the exclusion period when she made the applications in 2017 and the fact that she was making these applications suggests that the change of identity was done to avoid detection by Immigration and to avoid the exclusion period rather than for any other reason.
14. The Tribunal has formed the view that the applicant changed her identity in order to secure another visa to Australia and not for the reasons she now claims. That is, she had taken positive steps (such as obtaining new identity documents) in order to mislead Immigration and secure her return to Australia. She then consistently provided incorrect information in multiple applications to enable her to remain in Australia. In the Tribunal's view, these circumstances weigh very heavily in favour of the cancellation.
15. The Tribunal places significant weight on the fact that the decisions to grant the visas were based on incorrect information. While the applicant claims her relationship with the sponsor is genuine (and the Tribunal accepts that this may be so), the genuineness of the relationship is not the only criterion for the grant of the Partner visa and that claim overlooks several other visas that were granted to the applicant that were not based on the existence of that relationship. The Tribunal considers it highly problematic that the decision-makers were denied the opportunity to fully assess the applications against the visa criteria, including identity requirements and special return criteria, due to being unaware of the use of the different identity by the applicant. In the Tribunal's view, these circumstances weigh very heavily in favour of the cancellation.
16. The Tribunal has also formed the view that the applicant had shown a persistent disregard for the Australian laws. She admits she was not studying while holding a Student visa, in breach of visa conditions, and she admits that she had overstayed her visas twice before being removed from Australia in 2015. The Tribunal is unconvinced by the applicant's explanation that she was not familiar with the law, had limited English and did not know what to do. In the Tribunal's view, if the applicant had any interest in complying with the law, she could have taken steps to do so, either by making contact with Immigration or by seeking professional help. The applicant also admits that her passport and birth certificates are bogus documents and she had used these documents in her multiple visa applications, indicating that she had also failed to comply with s. 103 of the Act. In the Tribunal's view, these circumstances weigh very heavily in favour of the cancellation.
17. In the circumstances of this case, the Tribunal has decided to give greater weight to the factors that weigh in favour of the revocation.
18. The Tribunal has decided that there was non-compliance by the applicant in the way described in the notice given under s 107 of the Act. Further, having regard to all the relevant circumstances, as discussed above, the Tribunal concludes that the visa should be cancelled.

1. The Tribunal affirms the decision to cancel the applicant's Subclass 801 (Spouse) visa.