1711144 (Refugee)

This matter concerned an application to affirm the decision to cancel the first applicant's Subclass 866 (Protection) visa. The dispute arose from allegations that the applicant provided incorrect information in her protection visa application, specifically regarding her claimed fear of persecution as a Tamil woman whose husband was missing, and her alleged support for the LTTE. The Tribunal was required to determine whether the applicant had failed to comply with section 101(b) of the Migration Act 1958 by providing incorrect answers in her application, and if so, whether her visa should be cancelled.

The Tribunal considered the provisions of the Migration Act 1958, including sections 101, 107, and 109, which govern the provision of correct information in visa applications and the subsequent cancellation of visas for non-compliance. The Tribunal found that the delegate had properly engaged section 107 and issued a valid notice detailing the alleged non-compliance. The Tribunal was satisfied that the applicant's claims regarding her husband being missing and her fear of persecution due to this, as well as her alleged support for the LTTE, were factually incorrect. It noted that her husband was not missing, resided with her, and that her claims about harm and harassment were not substantiated by the evidence. The Tribunal applied the principle that an answer to a question is considered incorrect for the purposes of the Act, even if the applicant was unaware of its incorrectness.

Ultimately, the Tribunal concluded that the applicant had indeed provided incorrect information in her visa application, constituting non-compliance with section 101(b) of the Act. Having regard to all the relevant circumstances, the Tribunal affirmed the decision to cancel the applicant's Subclass 866 (Protection) visa. The Tribunal also noted that it had no jurisdiction with respect to the other applicant.