1710245 (Refugee)

This matter concerned an application for review of a decision to cancel the applicant's Subclass 866 (Protection) visa. The dispute arose from alleged non-compliance with section 101 of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth), which requires visa applicants to provide correct information. The applicant had provided incorrect details regarding his and his children's names, places of birth, and citizenship in his protection visa application. His wife had subsequently provided PNG birth certificates for the family, which contained different and allegedly incorrect information, indicating birth in PNG and PNG citizenship for the parents and children. The Tribunal was required to determine whether the applicant had failed to comply with section 101 of the Act and, if so, whether the visa should be cancelled.

The Tribunal found that the notice issued under section 107 of the Act complied with statutory requirements and that the applicant had indeed failed to comply with section 101 by providing incorrect information in his visa application. However, the Tribunal considered the applicant's explanation for the provision of fraudulent documents and incorrect information, noting his involvement in the West Papuan independence movement and the country information regarding document fraud and secessionist groups. The Tribunal concluded that the applicant's explanations were consistent and plausible, and that despite the non-compliance, the visa should not be cancelled.

The Tribunal set aside the decision under review and substituted a decision not to cancel the applicant's Subclass 866 (Protection) visa.