1700028 (Refugee)

This matter concerned the review of the cancellation of a protection visa held by an Iranian national. The applicant, who claimed to be a stateless Faili Kurd and a Shia Muslim, had been granted a protection visa based on his assertion of statelessness. The delegate had formed the view that the applicant had supplied incorrect information regarding his nationality and ethnicity, and that this information was central to the decision to grant the visa. The applicant's wife, an Australian permanent resident, and their children, who were Australian citizens, were also noted as relevant circumstances.

The Tribunal was required to determine whether the delegate had correctly formed the necessary state of mind to engage section 107 of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth) and whether the notice issued under that section complied with statutory requirements. Furthermore, the Tribunal had to consider whether the applicant was a person in respect of whom Australia had protection obligations, given the alleged provision of incorrect information regarding his Iranian citizenship and Faili Kurd ethnicity. The Tribunal also had to assess the relevance of the applicant's present circumstances in Australia, including his employment, marriage, and Australian citizen children, in the context of the visa cancellation.

The Tribunal found that the delegate had reached the necessary state of mind to engage section 107 and that the notice issued was compliant. It was satisfied that the applicant was an Iranian citizen, contrary to his claims of statelessness. The Tribunal determined that the decision to grant the protection visa was based on incorrect information provided by the applicant, specifically his claim to be stateless. The applicant had also deliberately withheld information about his brothers on the advice of a people smuggler. While the Tribunal acknowledged the applicant's significant ties to Australia, including his employment, marriage, and Australian citizen children, it concluded that these circumstances did not alter the finding that the original visa grant was based on false information and that Australia did not have protection obligations towards him on the basis of his claims.

The Tribunal affirmed the delegate's decision to cancel the applicant's protection visa.