1713881 (Refugee)

This matter concerned an application to review the decision to cancel the applicant's protection visa. The applicant, an Iranian citizen, had been granted a protection visa upon arrival in Australia, claiming fear of persecution due to his wife's support for an opposition candidate. The Minister's delegate subsequently cancelled the visa under section 109 of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth), finding that the applicant had provided incorrect information in his visa application.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicant had failed to comply with section 101(b) of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth) by providing incorrect answers in his protection visa application. This non-compliance was particularised in the Notice of Intention to Consider Cancellation (NOICC) as relating to questions concerning his reasons for leaving Iran and his fear of harm upon return. The Tribunal was required to determine if the delegate's finding of non-compliance was correct and, if so, whether the visa cancellation was warranted.

The Tribunal found that the delegate had correctly engaged section 107 of the Act and that the NOICC complied with statutory requirements. However, upon reviewing the evidence, the Tribunal set aside the decision to cancel the visa. The Tribunal noted the applicant's explanation for his travel to Iran, which he claimed was to attend to his father's severe medical condition and subsequent death, and his mother's ill health. While acknowledging the applicant's failure to disclose this travel and the potential for this to constitute incorrect information, the Tribunal considered the applicant's explanation that he misunderstood his obligations under the Act due to a lack of English comprehension and did not realise the gravity of providing incorrect answers on departure cards. The Tribunal also noted the applicant's subsequent travel to Iran, which he claimed was facilitated by family connections to avoid detection, and his assertion that he and his family lived in secret during their time there. The Tribunal found that the applicant's explanation, while not entirely free from doubt, raised sufficient concerns about the initial decision to warrant setting it aside.