1709735 (Refugee)

This matter concerned an application by a widow, who claimed to have been born in Iraq and expelled to Iran with her husband, for review of a decision to cancel her protection visa. The applicant had entered Australia on a temporary visa and subsequently applied for a protection visa, stating she was stateless and feared harm in both Iraq and Iran. She had made four visits to Iraq since arriving in Australia and was living with her daughter and receiving Centrelink payments. The applicant also claimed to have several serious health issues, requiring her to attend the Tribunal hearing in a wheelchair and with hearing assistance.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the grounds for cancellation of the applicant's visa were made out, and if so, whether the visa should be cancelled. This involved determining if the applicant had failed to comply with the provisions of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth) as alleged in the notice issued under section 107 of the Act. Specifically, the Tribunal had to consider whether the delegate had reached the necessary state of mind to issue the section 107 notice and whether the notice itself complied with statutory requirements. The Tribunal also had to ascertain if there had been non-compliance as described in the notice, which particularised the alleged failure to comply with section 101(b) of the Act.

The Tribunal considered the applicant's responses to questions in her protection visa application, which indicated she was Iraqi at birth, currently stateless, and held no other citizenship. She also stated she had no right to enter or reside in any country other than her country of nationality or former habitual residence, and that she sought protection in Australia because she feared returning to Iraq and Iran. The delegate's notice alleged non-compliance with section 101(b) of the Act, which broadly requires non-citizens to provide correct information in their applications and not to provide bogus documents. The Tribunal found that the delegate had reached the necessary state of mind to issue the section 107 notice and that the notice complied with statutory requirements. However, the Tribunal ultimately set aside the decision under review, implying that the grounds for cancellation were not sufficiently established or that other factors weighed against cancellation.