最近移民局又在拉网式审查过去申请人PR申请材料的真实性。最近移民局盯上的目标是那种组合申请PR的case, i.e. 一个符合条件的主申请人带一个副申请人。 其实这两个人并没有配偶关系。 这种组合申请双方都没有长期一起生活的目的，一方为了PR ，找到了一个中间人，在中间人的撮合下，另一方为了赚钱，就在申请中把这个人带上。 这种case 在印度非常普遍，SBS 也有报道，甚至这种主申请人被媒体起了一个有趣的绰号 “雅思新娘”。意思是雅思好的女生，符合移民条件，带上雅思不好的男生。共同拿到PR， 男方会给女方一笔钱。 中间人一般收集了双方的材料就会提供一些虚假的双方在一起的证据，比较普遍的是修改过了的共同账户对账单，水电账单，机票等文件。
我们希望客户不要成为这种雅思新娘或者雅思新郎。 但是如果你真的是雅思新娘或者新郎又被移民局发现了，现在要取消PR怎么办？
如果你收到了NOICC ，这并不是时间末日，因为你的PR已经拿到，是有机会保住的。
这种情况下的NOICC一般是引用S109 条款来取消签证，S109 条款规定申请如果在申请中提供了假材料，申请人的签证就可以被移民局取消。在取消申请人签证前，移民局会依照S107 给客户发送NOICC。
所以这个S107就可能是一个救命稻草，如果NOICC上面的某个地方不符合S107的要求，那么NOICC 就无效，那么S109 就不能起作用。这样客户的签证就可以在AAT拿回来。
Zubair v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs[2004] FCAFC 248 的case 给Tribunal很大的权力来挽回移民局的在决定中的程序失误，但是并没有给于AAT 来挽回移民局前置程序失误的权力。 Where the ground of invalidity of the primary decision arose from misconception of the substantive power, the review Tribunal remains equally bound to apply the laws defining the power of the primary decision-maker, and it may only substitute a decision which could have been made within confines of the decision-maker’s power. Thus, in the Brian Lawlor Case, the Tribunal’s only power in relation to a decision made without substantive power was to set aside that decision (c.f. Brennan J in Re Brian Lawlor Automotive Pty Ltd and Collector of Customs (NSW)(1978) 1 ALD 167 at 176) 这点也在 SZEEM v MIMIA [2005] FMCA 27）的判例中得到了法庭的进一步确认。 S109 cancellation 一般是由于客户提供了假材料，那么移民局会发出S107 noitice, 这个时候，如果能找出S107 notice 的漏洞，就可以在AAT上诉的时候拿回签证。
一般移民局只要被AAT驳回了，那么移民局一般不会再次以同一个理由来取消签证的。Brown v Minister for Home Affairs [2018] FCA 1722 http://www.judgments.fedcourt.gov.au/judgments/Judgments/fca/single/2018/2018fca1722 的第23 段
para 23 Therefore, if a delegate was to exercise the power by cancelling a visa it may result in a determination by a Tribunal (after a formal hearing with all the attributes provided for by theAdministrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth). It is unlikely that a determination as to whether to exercise a power that is entrusted to a repository of that kind (to be exercised in the manner provided for in that Act) could thereafter be re-exercised on the same facts in a manner contrary to the determination made by the Tribunal.
如果AAT 做出了推翻移民决定的判决，移民局是不能依据同样的过错来再次取消签证的。这就是为什么有些利用移民局程序失误拿回来的签证， 移民局没有第二次机会弥补程序上的过失，客户的签证可以永远保住的原因。
还有一种情况是中介在申请人不知情的情况下递交了假材料。 Gill v MIBP [2016] FCAFC 142 如果申请人不是indifference to 假材料，那么申请人可以不用对假材料负责。
如果不能从程序上找到移民局的瑕疵或者漏洞。 那么就要在AAT说服Member 不取消申请人签证的理由大于取消签证的理由。
以下这几条都大家都很讨论的
the correct information;
• the content of the genuine document (if any);
• 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; 很多AAT的判例都是依据这一条拿回的，比如 Cai (Migration) [2021] AATA 4474 (3 November 2021) https://jade.io/article/866878
• the circumstances in which the non-compliance occurred;
• the present circumstances of the visa holder;
• the subsequent behaviour of the visa holder concerning his or her obligations under Subdivision C of Division 3 of Part 2 of the Act;
• any other instances of non-compliance by the visa holder known to the Minister;
• the time that has elapsed since the non-compliance;
• any breaches of the law since the non-compliance and the seriousness of those breaches; and
• any contribution made by the holder to the community.
在是否取消签证上，Member 有决定权，所以被分一个好的member 也很重要。Collier J in Botha v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2017] FCA 362 at [39]:
There is ample authority at high level in this country that it is for a decision-maker to attribute such weight to relevant information as it sees fit: see for example Kirby J in Minister for Immigration & Ethnic Affairs v Wu Shan Liang (1996) 185 CLR 259 at [24]; Gummow and Hayne JJ in Abebe v Commonwealth [1999] HCA 14; (1999) 197 CLR 510 at [197]; the plurality in Minister for Immigration and Citizenship v SZJSS [2010] HCA 48; (2010) 243 CLR 164 at[33].
走到AAT hearing , 那么就要看运气和能否打动或者说服member 了。