1713991 (Refugee)

[2019] AATA 6218

1713991 (Refugee) [2019] AATA 6218 (19 July 2019)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

CASE NUMBER:  1713991

COUNTRY OF REFERENCE:                   Iran

MEMBER:Roslyn Smidt

DATE:19 July 2019

PLACE OF DECISION:  Sydney

DECISION:The Tribunal affirms the decision to cancel the applicant’s Subclass 866 (Protection) visa.

Statement made on 19 July 2019 at 11:55am

CATCHWORDS

REFUGEE – cancellation – protection visa – Iran – religion – Christian convert – incorrect information in visa application – claims contradicted by husband's evidence – feared being harmed or mistreated by the Iranian security authorities – returned voluntarily to Iran –claimed husband and brother would seek to harm her – inconsistent evidence – credibility issues – poor knowledge of Christianity – best interest of children – decision under review affirmed

LEGISLATION

Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss 46, 48A, 101, 107, 109, 438
Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth), r 2.41

CASES

Ibrahim v MHA [2019] FCAFC 89
MIAC v Khadgi (2010) 190 FCR 248

Any references appearing in square brackets indicate that information has been omitted from this decision pursuant to section 431 of the Migration Act 1958 and replaced with generic information which does not allow the identification of an applicant, or their relative or other dependant.

STATEMENT OF DECISION AND REASONS

APPLICATION FOR REVIEW

1. This is an application for review of a decision made by a delegate of the Minister for Immigration to cancel the applicant’s Subclass 866 (Protection) visa under s.109(1) of the Migration Act 1958 (the Act).

2. The issue in the present case is whether that ground for cancellation is made out, and if so, whether the visa should be cancelled.

3. The applicant appeared before the Tribunal on 21 November 2018 and 10 December 2018 to give evidence and present arguments. The Tribunal hearing was conducted with the assistance of an interpreter in the Farsi and English languages.

4. The applicant was represented in relation to the review by her registered migration agent. The representative attended the Tribunal hearing.

5. For the following reasons, the Tribunal has concluded that the decision to cancel the applicant’s visa should be affirmed.

   BACKGROUND

6. The applicant is a [age]-year-old woman from Iran. She lived with her husband in Shiraz prior to her departure for Australia in August 2012. She has three daughters, all of whom reside in Australia. Her husband remains in Iran. She has never worked outside the home. She first visited Australia between [February] 2011 and [April] 2011, returned on [in] August 2012 and applied for protection on 23 August 2012. She was granted a protection visa on 15 January 2013.

   THE APPLICANT’S ABILITY TO PROVIDE EVIDENCE

7. In September 2018 the applicant provided reports from her GP and [Organisation 1] which state that she has a long history of suffering psychological problems and is suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder, depression and anxiety. In his report her GP observed that in his view the uncertainty relating to her visa cancellation and problems in her relationship with her husband were a major contributing factor. It also notes that while she was depressed and preoccupied, she spoke openly about her problems and did not display any formal thought disorder.

8. At the hearing on 21 November 2018 the applicant said that she had been experiencing problems since she arrived in Australia as her husband was under pressure and was being visited regularly by the authorities. I asked if she would be able to answer my questions. She said that she would. I advised to her inform me if she needed a break or if any problems arose during the hearing.

9. Early in the hearing on 21 November 2018 the applicant appeared to have difficulty providing a coherent account of events. According to the interpreter her responses when asked if she had told her parents that she intended to remain in Australia in 2012 lacked meaning and sometimes had no nouns or verbs and she appeared to say both that her parents knew about her conversion and the problems she had faced in Iran and that they were not aware of these matters. I observed that there appeared to be a problem which might relate to interpreting issues or to something else. I advised the applicant that I proposed to continue with the hearing, but I would adjourn the hearing and make other arrangements if these problems continued. The applicant and her representative agreed to my proposal.

10. The applicant’s evidence continued to be confused on occasion following this and she was clearly anxious during both hearings. However, she was generally responsive to the questions she was asked and neither she nor her representative raised any issues relating to interpreting or her ability to provide evidence for the remainder of the hearing. I have taken the applicant’s psychological or emotional state into account when considering her case. However, I do not believe that these problems significantly hampered her ability to provide evidence.

    SECTION 438(1)(a) ISSUES

11. A document entitled ‘Certificate and notification regarding the disclosure of certain information under s438 of the Migration Act 1958’ is attached to the applicant’s file and states that it was contrary to public interest to disclose information held at folios 38 to 42, 63 to 74 and 88 because they contain documents or information that reveal ‘confidential departmental investigate (sic) methods’. Folios 38 to 42 contain information forwarded from the Australian Embassy in Tehran regarding the interview conducted with the applicant’s husband. Relevant portions of this information are set out in the NOITCC. Folios 63 to 74 contain allegations that the applicant is pretending to be Christian to obtain protection in Australia. They also contain information pertaining to other individuals which is not relevant to the applicant’s case.

12. At the hearing I advised the applicant of the existence of this certificate. I told her that it covered information on her husband’s interview with the Australian Embassy. As noted below, the relevant sections of this interview are set out in the Notice of Intention to Consider Cancellation of visa (NOITCC) and the primary decision on the applicant’s case, and were discussed with the applicant during the hearing. The applicant’s explanation for her husband’s comments is also set out below. Apart from maintaining that her claims were true, neither she nor her representative who was present at the time made any further comment on this information

13. I told the applicant that the certificate also referred to folios that contained allegations that she was not a genuine convert to Christianity. I advised her that there was no indication of the source of these allegations and no real detail beyond the assertion that she had not told the truth and I would therefore not give any weight to this information when considering her claims. Finally, I advised the applicant that some of the folios covered by the certificate related to other people and had no relevance to her case.

14. Neither the applicant nor her representative made any further comment on these issues.

    CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE

15. Section 109(1) of the Act allows the Minister to cancel a visa if the visa holder has failed to comply with ss.101, 102, 103, 104, 105 or 107(2) of the Act. Broadly speaking, these sections require non-citizens to provide correct information in their visa applications and passenger cards, not to provide bogus documents and to notify the Department of any incorrect information of which they become aware and of any relevant changes in circumstances.

16. The exercise of the cancellation power under s.109 of the Act is conditional on the Minister issuing a valid notice to the visa holder under s.107 of the Act, providing particulars of the alleged non-compliance. Where a notice is issued that does not comply with the requirements in s.107, the power to cancel the visa does not arise. Extracts of the Act relevant to this case are attached to this decision.

    Did the notice comply with the requirements in s.107? 

17. In the present case, there is a question as to whether the notice issued by the Minister’s delegate complied with s.107. 

18. The NOITCC states that there was non-compliance with s.101(b) of the Act  in relation to claims made in a statutory declaration made by the applicant’s daughter. The applicant and her daughter lodged a joint protection visa application and made independent, albeit similar, claims. It has been submitted that her daughter’s statement was made in support of her own application for protection and was not relevant to the applicant.  I accept that the statement in question was not made by the applicant and was provided primarily to support her daughter’s application for protection. In these circumstances  it cannot be said that there was non-compliance with s.101(b) in relation to the applicant.

19. However, with regard to other matters set out in the NOITCC I am satisfied that the delegate had reached the necessary state of mind to engage s.107 and that the notice issued under s.107 complied with the statutory requirements.

    Was there non-compliance as described in the s.107 notice?

20. The issue before the Tribunal is whether there was non-compliance in the way described in the s.107 notice, being the manner particularised in the notice, and if so, whether the visa should be cancelled.

    Section 107 Notice – Notice of Intention to Consider Cancellation of visa (NOITCC)

21. The applicant arrived in Australia for the second time on a visitor visa [in] August 2012. On 23 August 2012, she lodged a Form 866C Application for a Protection (Class XA) visa with the assistance of her migration agent. As part of this application she filed a completed Form 866 together with a statement setting out her claims for protection. She was granted a protection visa on 15 January 2013.

22. On 24 February 2017 the applicant was issued a NOITCC which notes that that Department movement records indicated that she had travelled outside Australia on five occasions since [January] 2013 and that all but one of her passenger cards stated that she had spent the majority of her time abroad in Iran. It observed that this indicated that she had provided incorrect information on her protection visa application as her voluntary return to Iran indicated that she did not have an adverse profile or fear harm as claimed in that application.

23. The dates during which the applicant was outside Australia are set out in the NOITCC and the primary decision in her case as follows:

    ·[March] 2013 to [May] 2013 (44 days). According to her incoming passenger card she boarded the flight to Australia in [Country 1] but spent most of her time in Iran.

    ·[October] 2013 to [December] 2013 (50 days). According to her incoming passenger card she boarded the flight to Australia in [Country 1], but spent most of her time in Iran.

    ·[May] 2014 to [August] 2014 (92 days). According to her incoming passenger card she spent most of her time in Iran.

    ·[May] 2015 to [July] 2015 (47 days). According to her passenger card she boarded a plane in [Country 1] but spend most of her time in Iran.

    ·[February] 2016 to [April] 2016 (52 days). According to her passenger card she mostly spent time in [Country 2].

24. The applicant was issued visas for [Country 1] at the [Country 1] Embassy in Tehran [in] November 2013 and [in] July 2014.

25. The applicant applied to sponsor her husband to for a spouse visa on 21 April 2013. He was interviewed at the Australian Embassy in Tehran [in] October 2014. According to the summary of the interview on the NOITCC and the primary decision on case file, the applicant’s husband provided the following information:

    ·His daughters went to Australia as students and decided to stay because their future prospects in Iran were not great. His wife went to Australia because they were concerned about their youngest daughter who was alone and because she missed her daughter.

    ·His wife only decided to stay in Australia after she arrived. He knew that she had an interview with Australian officials and was granted a visa, but he did not know the details.

    ·His wife had recently returned to Iran for three months to see him and her sick mother who was in hospital.

    ·His wife did not have any problems entering Iran and had shown both her Iranian passport and her Australian travel documents.

    ·He said that his wife and children were fearful for the children’s future in Iran, but while they opposed government policies and what was happening with the government, they were not afraid of the Iranian government.

    ·He said that his family had not done anything to make them fear returning to Iran, but they generally did not like the Iranian government.

    ·He said that he had met his wife and daughter in [Country 1] between March and May 2013.

    ·He said that his daughters and his wife and converted to Christianity. He said that he was a Muslim, but he was considering converting to Christianity when he arrived in Australia.

    ·His wife was not a Christian prior to going to Australia and she had never been persecuted in Iran nor had any problems with the Iranian government.

26. The non-compliance identified and particularised in the NOITCC was non-compliance with s.101(b) of the Act  in the following respects:

    ·The information provided at Question 42 where the applicant claimed that she was known to Iranian authorities and they were seeking to persecute her, so she was seeking protection in Australia so that she would not have to return to Iran is incorrect because she returned voluntarily to Iran on four occasions, the first being two months after she was granted protection, and remained there for significant periods of time without apparent issue or impediment which indicated that she did not have an adverse profile and had not experienced the harassment claimed in her application. The delegate also noted that the applicant’s husband had stated that she did not fear the Iranian government and had done nothing which would cause her to fear returning to Iran.

    ·The information provided at Question 43 where she claimed that she had left Iran because she had been frequently harassed by the Iranian authorities because her family had converted to Christianity is incorrect, because she returned voluntarily to Iran on four occasions after obtaining protection in Australia and remained there for significant periods of time without apparent issue or impediment, which indicated that she did not hold the adverse profile claimed in her application and had not been harassed in Iran. It also notes that her husband had stated that the real reason she had come to Australia was that her youngest daughter was alone in the country and missed her.

    ·The information provided at Question 44 where she claimed that she had experienced psychological harm as a result of frequent harassment from the Iranian authorities due to her children’s conversion to Christianity is incorrect, as she returned voluntarily to Iran on four occasions after obtaining protection in Australia and remained there for significant periods of time without apparent issue or impediment, which indicated that she did not hold the adverse profile claimed in her application and had experienced psychological harm. It also notes that her husband had stated that she did not fear the Iranian government and had done nothing to fear returning to Iran.

    ·The information provided at Question 45 where she claimed that if she returned to Iran she would experience unannounced visits by the authorities and threatening telephone calls as she had she had previously experienced Iran is incorrect, because despite claiming that she was known and the Iranian authorities who were seeking to persecute her, she returned voluntarily to Iran on four occasions after obtaining protection in Australia and remained there for significant periods of time without apparent issue or impediment which indicates that she does not have an adverse profile and was not harassed in Iran as claimed in her protection visa. It also notes that husband had stated that she did not fear the Iranian government and had done nothing to fear returning to Iran.

    ·The information provided at Question 46 where she claimed that she feared being harmed or mistreated by the Iranian security authorities was incorrect because she returned voluntarily to Iran on four occasions after obtaining protection in Australia and remained there for significant periods of time without apparent issue or impediment, which indicates that she does not have an adverse profile and was not harassed in Iran as claimed in her protection visa. It also notes that her husband had stated that she did not fear the Iranian government and had done nothing to fear returning to Iran.

    ·The information provided at Question 47 where she claimed that she feared the Iranian authorities because of her own and her children’s interest in Christianity is incorrect because despite claiming that the she was known to the Iranian authorities were seeking to harm or mistreat her she returned voluntarily to Iran on four occasions after obtaining protection in Australia and remained there for significant periods of time without apparent issue or impediment which indicates that she does not have an adverse profile and was not harassed in Iran as claimed in her protection visa. It also notes that her husband had stated that she did not fear the Iranian government and had done nothing to fear returning to Iran.

    ·The information provided at Question 48 where she claimed that she feared being harassed and harmed by the Iranian security authorities is incorrect because despite claiming that the she was known to the Iranian authorities who were seeking to harm or mistreat her, she returned voluntarily to Iran on four occasions after obtaining protection in Australia and remained there for significant periods of time without apparent issue or impediment, which indicates that she does not have an adverse profile in Iran as claimed in her protection visa and did not have any reason to fear harm or harassment from the Iranian authorities. It also notes that her husband had stated that she did not fear the Iranian government and had done nothing to fear returning to Iran.

    The applicant’s response to the NOITCC

27. The applicant responded to the NOITCC on 7 March 2017.  She said that all of the information provided on her protection visa application was true. She said that the problems she faced in the months leading up to her departure from Iran in August 2012 arose as a result of the involvement of her daughter and son-in-law in Christian activities in Australia.

28. The applicant said that the information regarding her travel to Iran after obtaining a protection visa set out in the NOITCC was incorrect as she had only travelled to Iran twice, first between [October] and December 2013 and again between May and August 2014. She said that these trips were for urgent reasons relating to her mother’s health and hospitalisation.  She said that when she was leaving Iran in 2014 she was taken to a room and questioned by the authorities about pro-Christian entries on her [social media] page. She told them that someone must have hacked her account.

29. The applicant said that the other two trips mentioned in the NOITCC were to [Country 1]. She said that she had travelled to [Country 1] to spend time with her husband with whom she had a close and loving relationship.

30. With regard to the information her husband provided to the Australian Embassy [in] October 2014, she observed that his interview was intended to assess the genuineness of their relationship and not to investigate what he knew about her problems in Iran.  She said that she had spoken to him briefly about the interview in March 2017 (after receiving the NOITCC).  He told her that he began to face problems after her son-in-law visited Iran in July 2011 and had to leave the country within hours of arriving. He also told her for the first time that he been forced to accept early retirement from his [employment] because of issues relating to their son-in-law’s visit, although he was able to keep his pension entitlements. He said that he now worked in the private sector.  He also told her that the night before his interview at the Australian Embassy plain clothed security agents came to his rental accommodation in [his village].[1] They told him that they knew about his interview and warned him not to say anything about what had happened prior to his forced early retirement or about any issues he, the applicant or their daughters had experienced with the Iranian authorities.  The agents told him that they had eyes and ears everywhere and if he failed to do as he was told his passport would be confiscated and he would be blacklisted and never allowed to leave the country. He said that the agents had been monitoring all of his activities and they were aware that the applicant had visited him twice in Iran.

    [1] [source deleted].

1. The applicant said that she had continued to attend church and her fellow church members considered her to be a faithful Christian.

   Evidence provided to the Tribunal

   Pre-hearing submissions

2. The applicant provided statements dated 8 November 2018 which repeats the information set out in her response to the NOITCC and adds that she is now estranged from her husband. It states that about three months earlier she learned from a friend in Iran that her husband had entered a temporary marriage with another woman, although they do not live together. She said that her estranged husband and her brother were now her biggest enemies in Iran. She said that in late August 2018 her husband told her daughters that if she wanted a divorce or sought the return of her dowry she would have to return to Iran and if she did this he would report her to the authorities as a Christian convert.

3. The applicant also provided a report from her GP. It states that the applicant had told him that her husband had been cheating on her and she felt ashamed and said that she should have returned to him a long time ago. She had not terminated the relationship as she as ambivalent and had difficulty deciding what to do.

4. The applicant provided a statement from [Ms A], a friend who is a retired psychologist. [Ms A] said that she had met the applicant five years earlier (in late 2013) while working as a volunteer at [a charity] operated by a church she attended in [Suburb 1]. At the time the applicant was attending [Church 1] in [Suburb 2]. [Ms A] invited her to attend the [Suburb 1] church, which she did for about three years. In about April 2015 they both left that church and began attending [Church 1] in [Suburb 2]. [Ms A] said that she spent periods of up to five months visiting family in France during the time she has known the applicant, but she understood that the applicant always attended services at [Church 1] regularly apart from times when she visited her daughter in [another suburb] and went to a nearby church and when her daughter was pregnant in 2018 and she spent a lot of time helping her. [Ms A] said that she had established a Bible study group about three years earlier and first invited the applicant to attend early in 2018. However, the applicant was busy and [Ms A] was in France from April to September so the applicant only began to attend in September 2018. [Ms A] said that she believed that the applicant was a steadfast follower of Jesus.

5. [Ms A] said that the applicant had told her that about three months earlier (in early September 2018) she had learned that her husband was in a relationship with another woman and was no longer committed to their marriage. The applicant told her she had spoken to her husband about a divorce and seeking return of her dowry of [amount], and in response he threatened to report her to the authorities for abandoning Islam.

6. [Ms A’s] statement repeats some of the claims made by the applicant regarding her visits to Iran in 2013 and 2014. It states, inter alia, that at the time of these visits her family was not aware that she had converted to Christianity, but they had learned this later.  It states that when the applicant told her brother about her conversion he threatened to kill her if she returned to Iran. She also said if the applicant returned to Iran she would want to continue to practice her Christian faith which causes problems with the authorities and with her family and friends.

7. The applicant provided a letter from [Pastor B] [of] [Church 2] dated 5 November 2018 which states that he met the applicant when she began to attend his church on a regular basis in 2013/14. It also states that she attended a church camp in April 2015.  She provided statements from [Mr and Ms C] dated 9 November 2018 which state that they are members of [Church 2] and knew the applicant when she attended that church. According to [Ms C] she began attending the church about three and a half years earlier (in about mid-2015).

   Discussion at the hearing

8. The applicant attended a hearing of the Tribunal held on 21 November 2018 and 10 December 2018. The following summary does not necessarily follow the order in which the evidence was given.   

   Visits to Iran following grant of the applicant’s protection visa

9. I reminded the applicant that the delegate had found the she had not provided correct information in her protection visa application because she had returned to Iran voluntarily on four occasions after she was granted protection and because her account of her situation in Iran and her reasons for coming to Australia was at odds with information provided by her husband when he was interviewed at the Australia Embassy in Tehran in October 2014.

10. The applicant said that she had returned to Iran in October 2013 and again in May 2014, but the other trips covered by the other passenger cards were to [Country 1] and [Country 2] where she met her husband who travelled there from Iran. She provided copies of her travel documents which contained visas and stamps from which appeared to be consistent with these claims. She confirmed that she had entered and departed through Tehran Airport using her Iranian passport.

11. The applicant said that she had travelled to Iran on both occasions to visit her mother who was ill and asking to see her. On the first occasion she was in hospital prior to her arrival. On the second occasion she was in hospital when the applicant arrived, but she was released a few days later.  The applicant said that she had not attended church or practiced her religion while in Iran, although she took a Bible with her on a least one visit.

12. The applicant said that during her first visit to Iran she and her husband stayed mostly with her mother but they also spent about two weeks at a house which her husband had rented. On the second visit she appears to have stayed mostly with her husband. She said that she spent a day or two with friends in Tehran prior to returning to Australia. There is no suggestion that she travelled or resided anywhere else during her visits to Iran.

13. The applicant stated that her parents lived near Shiraz. [Number] of her [siblings] also live in Shiraz, although she is estranged from one of her brothers. [Number] sisters live elsewhere. The applicant also lived in Shiraz prior to coming to Australia. She said that her husband had left that address shortly after her departure in 2012. She said that he lived in rented premises following that, all of which appear to have been in or near Shiraz.

14. The applicant said that her husband had not provided an accurate account of her circumstances because Iranian security officials had warned him to be careful about what he said during that interview. She also claims that he was monitored and harassed after she left Iran and as a result he was in semi-hiding.

15. The applicant said that the only problem she experienced in Iran occurred when she was about to depart from the airport in 2014. She said that she was signalled by an official who wanted to talk to her.  She was not called by name and was not taken to a room, but her bag was searched and her mobile phone was examined.  The official reviewed her [social media] page which had a picture of the cross and a few verses from the Bible, which made the official angry. She said that someone must have hacked her phone. He told her to delete the entry and warned her that if she repeated this offence she would be put on a blacklist and not be permitted to leave Iran again. The incident took about ten minutes.

16. The applicant said that while she was staying at her mother’s house during that visit two of her friends had visited and she had shown them some photographs on her phone. When she spoke to her husband after arriving back in Australia he suggested that these friends might have looked at her [social media] entries and informed the authorities what was on her phone. She said that she had been [social media] friends with these people before her visit in 2014, but after her involvement with Christianity was revealed they no longer contacted her. I observed that if they were [social media] friends before 2014 they would have seen the posts about Christianity before her visit. She said that this correct, but they had not been very concerned.

    The applicant’s husband circumstances following the applicant’s departure in 2012

17. The applicant said that her husband was aware that she planned to remain in Australia and seek residency when she left in August 2012. She said that during her first visit to Iran in 2013 she spoke to him about her protection visa and had also tried to convince him to convert to Christianity. 

18. At the hearing on 21 November 2018 I asked the applicant about her husband’s profession. She said that when she left in 2012 he worked for [Company 1] and [was also employed in Occupation 1]. He was still doing this work in 2015, but her daughter had told her that he was currently working [in another occupation].  I asked where he had worked prior to 2012. She said that since 1983 he had taught first aid, but she could not recall the name of the organisation he worked for. At the end of the hearing she recalled that it was called [details deleted].

19. I noted that during her interview with the delegate who determined her protection visa the applicant had claimed that her husband was in semi-hiding because she and her daughters had converted to Christianity and asked her to clarify what she meant by this. She said that security officials had been harassing her daughter at university and had also come to their home, and her husband did not feel secure so he left the family home and moved to rented accommodation. He did not tell anyone the address and the authorities did not know where he was.  She said that he had been in semi-hiding since 2012. 

20. At the hearing on 10 December 2018 I noted that in her response to the NOITCC the applicant had said that her husband had begun to face problems after their son-in-law [Mr D] visited Iran in 2011,[2] that he was forced to take early retirement from his work as a [employee] and asked why [Mr D’s] visit had caused problems for her husband. She said that [Mr D] only stayed in Iran for a few days because of the danger, but her family’s problems had begun when her first daughter became a Christian. I advised her that it was my understanding her daughter had converted before [Mr D’s] visit, while the NOITCC response suggested that her husband’s problems had begun after [Mr D] visited in 2011. She said that her husband’s problems related to the problems with their children and added that [Mr D] left Iran quickly in 2011 because of the same problems.

    [2] I initially suggested that [Mr D] visited in 2012, but the applicant corrected me and said that he visited in 2011.

21. I noted that the applicant had stated that her husband was being monitored and asked why he was being monitored. She said that he had told her that he had received anonymous telephone calls and that people were watching him from across the street whenever he went out, and because of this he kept changing his accommodation. I asked when this had begun. She said that it commenced the year her first daughter came to Australia (in 2009) and the problems had worsened later. When I asked her to confirm that the problems began when her first daughter converted, she said that she believed that the problems started in about 2011. I observed that the applicant had previously stated that her husband did not go into semi-hiding until 2012. She said that this was correct and added that he only went into hiding after her other daughters came to Australia.

22. I asked the applicant if her husband had any contact with the Iranian authorities prior her visit in 2014.  She said that he had not. I observed that he had travelled to [Country 1] in 2013 which suggested had some contact with the authorities at the airport. She said that he had travelled by road to [Country 3], departed illegally and then travelled to [Country 1]. I asked how he had returned to Iran. She said that he had re-entered illegally from [Country 3]. I asked why her husband had returned to Iran in 2013 if he was so fearful of harm from the authorities that he left the country illegally. She said that he had to return as he had nowhere else to go. I observed that he could have approached UNHCR in [Country 3] or [Country 1] and requested protection. She said that he had not considered these options and added that he had an elderly mother.

23. The applicant confirmed that her husband had travelled to [Country 1] again in 2015 and to [Country 2] in 2016. She said that she did not know the details of his travel on those occasions, but she thought he had departed and returned legally through the airport. I asked if he had experienced any problems at the airport. She said that she was not aware of any problems but she understood that he had deleted all the information on his mobile phone.

24. I reminded the applicant that the NOITCC set out examples of information provided by her husband during his interview at the Australian Embassy which suggested that she had not been fearful of returning to Iran and that in her response to the NOITCC she had said her husband had not mentioned her problems because security officials had warned him not to do so. I asked who had issued this warning. She said her husband had told her that they were powerful security officials but he did not tell her anything about what they said to him. I observed that she had previously claimed that they had given him a warning. She confirmed that this was correct. She said that they told him that they knew that his children had gone overseas and changed their religion, and warned him that if he left Iran he would not be able to return. She said that after that he was scared to talk to the officials at the Australian Embassy.

25. I asked the applicant how these officials knew about her husband’s interview with the Embassy. She said that they were very powerful and they would have had background information about her children. I advised her that it was not my understanding the Iranian government were usually so concerned about people who converted to Christianity after they left Iran that they monitored their family members in Iran.  The applicant maintained the authorities would be concerned about such conversions and would follow up with family members in Iran.

26. I noted that according to the record of her husband’s interview he had said that she and her daughters had converted to Christianity, that she did not like the Iranian government and that he was also thinking of converting to Christianity after he came to Australia and observed that it seemed unlikely that he would have made these comments during his interview if he was fearful after being warned against mentioning such things by Iranian security officials.  Her response was somewhat confused, but she said that while he may have spoken about these matters he was fearful of speaking about matters relating to security of the country.

27. I advised the applicant that I had difficulty accepting that her husband had been visited by security officials on the day before his interview with the security officials. She said that Iranian security was very powerful.

28. I asked the applicant if her husband had experienced any problems after his interview at the Australian Embassy. She said that he continued to receive anonymous telephone calls from people who called and hung up.

29. I observed that despite being so heavily monitored by Iranian security her husband appeared to have been able to travel in and out of Iran to visit her without experiencing any problems. She said that on the first visit he left illegally. I noted he appeared to have left legally on at least two occasions following his first trip without experiencing any problems. She said that perhaps he had been able to do this because time had passed and there had not been any more problems and in any event it was no longer relevant because they were separated.  I advised her that I had raised these matters because I had difficulty accepting some of her evidence regarding her husband’s circumstances and I was giving her the opportunity to comment.  She said that she did not know how he left Iran when he visited her in [Country 1] and suggested he might have gone to another country first.  I noted that she had previously said that after his first departure he left Iran legally on his own passport when he visited her in [Country 1] and [Country 2]. She said that this was correct.

30. I noted that the applicant’s husband had told officials at the Australia Embassy that he had retired in 2011 with [a senior rank] in the Iranian [defence forces] after which he moved to the private sector which was at odds with the information in her response to the NOITCC which said that he had been forced to retire in 2012. She said that he was forced to retire because of the issue with their children but he could not tell Embassy officials about this because he was afraid of the government.

31. I noted that it appeared that the applicant’s husband held a high rank in the Iranian [defence forces] which was at odds with her claim that he taught first aid.  She said he worked on a military base and taught people there. I advised her that I had great difficulty accepting that someone with [his rank] would be engaged in teaching first aid. I advised that while her husband’s rank in the military may not have any direct relevance to her application, I was concerned that she did not appear to have given honest evidence about his work, which appeared to have been a highly successful military career. She said that she did not know what her husband’s rank was because she was not interested in his work and did not like his job. I advised her that I had difficulty accepting that she did not know her husband’s rank. She said that like everyone in any job he got promotions and moved to a higher rank. I asked again if she knew her husband’s rank. She said that she thought he was a [detail deleted], but he was not in [a specific defence force]. She said that he had been involved in teaching people.

    The applicant current relationship with her husband

32. I noted that in her recent submissions the applicant had claimed that she was now estranged from her husband and he had threatened to harm her if she returned to Iran. She said that because they had been apart for a long time their relationship changed, and he had entered a temporary marriage with another woman. She first heard rumours about this about three months ago, but it appeared that her husband had been with his temporary wife for four years.  I asked her to tell me about the rumours. She said that a friend of her husband’s temporary wife sent her a text with this information. I asked how the friend knew her contact details. She said that she thought the woman got her number from her husband’s temporary wife.

33. I asked the applicant why her husband was making threats against her. She said that she had asked him to return her marriage portion, which she was entitled to do and he had threatened to expose the fact that she had converted to Christianity to the authorities if she continued with her claim.  I asked if he had made any other threats. She said that this was the only threat he had made. I observed that according to her evidence it appeared that the authorities already knew about her conversion and that her husband was experiencing significant problems because of this which made it difficult to understand why he would have made such a threat. She maintained that her claim was true. She said that her husband was now her enemy and one of the main reasons she could not return to Iran.

34. The applicant said that the last time she spoke to her husband was about three months before the November hearing and they had argued during the call. She said that her daughters still contacted him from time to time.

35. During the hearing on 21 November 2018 I asked the applicant if she had withdrawn her sponsorship of her husband’s application for a spouse visa. She said that she planned to do so but the relevant files were with her representative and she was waiting for his advice.  At the hearing on 10 December 2018 she said that her representative had emailed the Department and withdrawn her sponsorship from her husband’s application.

    The applicant’s relationship with her family in Iran

1. As noted above the applicant stayed mainly with her parents during her first visit to Iran in 2013 and also spent time with them on her second visit. She said that all of her siblings apart from her brother [Mr E] visited her when she was at her mother’s house in Iran. According to submissions provided in November 2018 [Mr E] had threatened to kill her when he learned that she had converted to Christianity.

2. The applicant’s family’s knowledge of and reaction to her conversion to Christianity was discussed at the hearing. Her evidence was confused.  On 21 November 2018 she said that her parents were not aware that she and her daughters had become Christians, but also said that her estranged brother [Mr E] had received a message on his mobile which made him suspect that they had converted and he had told other family members about this. After some confused discussion it was established that [Mr E] had told her parents she had converted in 2012, but they did not believe him. She said that her family had severed ties with [Mr E] because his wife was insane. She had not seen him for about 15 years.  However, her mother visited him once every year or so. She said that [Mr E] had threatened to burn her when he learned of her conversion. 

3. At the beginning of the hearing on 10 December 2018 the applicant said she wanted to clarify her evidence regarding her parents’ knowledge of her religion. She said that [Mr E] had recently told her mother that she had converted to Christianity. When asked for clarification she said that her nephew had told her [Mr E] had visited her mother about two weeks before the hearing and when she spoke to her mother a week later she cried. She said that while her mother had said nothing about her conversion to Christianity during this telephone call, she believed that her mother had fallen ill because [Mr E] told her that she was now a Christian. I asked how she had reached this conclusion. She said that [Mr E] had bad thoughts. I observed that while her brother may be a bad person this did not mean that he had told her parents about her conversion. She said that her brother was that type of person.

4. I asked the applicant for more information about [Mr E’s] knowledge of her conversion and the threats he had made against her. She said that she did not know how he found out she had converted, but about three weeks after her arrival in Australia in August 2012 he contacted her younger sister and told her he would set her on fire if she returned to Iran because she had converted to Christianity. She said that on the two occasions she visited Iran he was on a mission to another city and that was why he had not carried out his threat.

5. I noted that the applicant had previously stated [Mr E] had been estranged from her family for 15 years and asked if she had any idea how he learned about her conversion. She said that he sometimes had contact with her mother and other members of her extended family. I observed that her mother did not know about her conversion in 2012. She said that it was seven years since [Mr E] had learned of her conversion and she could not remember the details. She added that [Mr E] used to work in [Company 2]. Her husband had gone to [Company 2] for her daughters and because of this her brother knew that they were leaving Iran. I asked if she was suggesting that her husband had told him that she had converted. She said that she was not suggesting her husband told him. She added that perhaps he found out through her children, but she did not know.

6. The applicant said that the sister who met her in [Country 1] in 2015 had been aware of her conversion, but was not greatly concerned at the time. However, about three weeks ago she had [cut off contact with] her on [social media] and severed all ties. She said that everyone in her family had now disowned her. She was not sure why this had occurred, but thought it could have been because of her conversion or because she was having problems with her husband.

   The applicant’s current fears on return

7. The applicant stated that she was still fearful of returning to Iran because she had converted to Christianity, but she was particularly afraid of her brother and her husband.

8. The applicant confirmed that her oldest daughter had converted to Christianity in 2009 and that she and her youngest daughter began to experience problems in Iran in 2011.  I asked the applicant if she believed the Iranian authorities were aware that she had converted. She said that they would be aware now because she had been baptised and this information would be available on the internet. I asked her to clarify where her baptism was mentioned on the internet. She said that she understood that all baptisms were registered. I advised her that there was no such register in Australia. She said that she did not know if the Iranian authorities were aware of her baptism.

9. The applicant’s involvement with Christianity while in Australia was discussed. Her evidence was somewhat confused. She said that she had attended [Church 1] in [Suburb 2] which had services for Iranian people for about a year after she arrived in Australia, but stopped attending a few months after she obtained her protection visa in January 2013.  After that she met [Ms A] at a church shop towards the end of 2013 she started going to a church in [Suburb 1] with her. They went to services every week from then until sometime in 2015. She said that it was a protestant church called [Church 2]. She did not know what [the initials in the name of Church 2] stood for, but said that the priest was named [Pastor B]. When asked if she had been involved in any other activities she said that she went to a church camp on one occasion. She said that she sometimes saw other members of the church in the church shop, but she did not have any other contact with them.

10. I asked the applicant when in 2015 she stopped going to [Church 2] church. She could not recall, but said that it might have been winter. She said that [Ms A] no longer wanted to attend that church so they left. After that they both attended English language services at [Church 1] in [Suburb 2]. I asked her how often she had attended that church. She said that her daughter got pregnant twice and changed her location so she moved a few times. I asked her to clarify where she had attended church after 2015. She said that she had attended [Church 1] in [Suburb 2] since 2015 but she sometimes went to churches in the area where her daughter lived, for example she went to [another] Church about four or five times, but she did not get to know people there. She said she also attended another church near a MacDonalds on one occasion.

11. I asked the applicant how often she attended services at [Church 1] in [Suburb 2]. She said that sometimes she went once a week, but because of family commitments she sometimes went to other churches. I asked again how often she attended [Church 1] in [Suburb 2]. She said sometimes every week, sometimes only once every two week or so. I asked her for the name of the Minister. She was hesitant and said that it was [name deleted] or something similar. I asked if the Minister would know her. She said she sometimes entered from the side or back and left after saying her prayers. I asked again if the Minister knew her. She said that she thought he did, but for two years she had been busy with her grandchildren.  I asked which two years this had been. She said that she had not gone there very often in 2015 and 2016, but during that time she had gone to churches close to her daughter’s home. When asked for details of these churches she said that she had not gone very often, but she loved going to church and whenever she saw one she would participate.

12. I asked the applicant if she had been involved in any Christian activities apart from attending these services. She said that for the last month or so she attended services in at a church in [Suburb 3] with [Ms A] and she was looking for other church related activities. She said that she also went to Bible studies on Fridays and sometimes on another night as well. She said she started attending these classes before she received the notification of cancellation of her visa and she had also attended Bible classes run by [a] priest at [Suburb 2] [Church 1] in the past. When [Ms A] gave evidence she said that the applicant had only begun to attend her Bible classes in September 2018 (see below). When asked to comment on [Ms A’s] evidence the applicant did not dispute her version of events, but said that she was very stressed and could not remember things.

13. I asked the applicant if she had attended church during her visits to [Country 1]. She said that she had gone to a large church on two or three occasions, but she could not remember its name. She also went to a small church. When asked how many times she went to church in total she said she had gone three times, but she had a Bible with her. She said that she had not gone more frequently because her husband could not follow the proceedings. She said that she had gone to church once while she was in [Country 2] in 2016.

14. I asked the applicant what had attracted her to Christianity. She said that Christianity meant affection, compassion, hopefulness, being rescued from eternal punishment and having eternal life. She said that in Christianity there was no animosity or war or conflict.  I asked her to tell me her favourite section of the Bible. She said that she liked John and Matthew. I asked what she liked in John. She said that John said that God was the saviour and would never leave believers alone and hopeless. I asked what was in John that was not in the other gospels. She said that the Bible was completely different from the book she had before. It was about forgiveness and kindness.

15. I observed that these were very general statements and asked if she could tell me more about the stories in John and Matthew. She said that when you become faithful to God he will never leave you. I noted that there were stories in the gospels and asked her to tell me any. She said that her English was not very good. She listened to recordings every night and she was trying to learn the stories. I observed that she claimed that she had converted to Christianity and had spent several years studying the Bible, which suggested she should know more about the contents of the gospels than general statements about eternal life and God’s love.  She said that she had been working with [Ms A] for about a year or so and she had learned she should be kind to her enemy. 

16. I asked the applicant if she had read the Old Testament and if she could tell how it was different from the New Testament.  Said that she had read that Old Testament, but was unable to say how it was different from the New Testament. I asked if anyone important was mentioned in one book, but not the other. She said that she did not know. 

17. I asked if she could tell me anything about Christian beliefs regarding creation. She said that God created people and added that she was very confused. I asked if she knew who Noah was. She said that he was a prophet and there was a ship and a miracle. I asked if she knew any psalms. She said that there were prayers she said every day, but did not appear to know the psalms.

18. I asked her what she knew about Jesus. She said he was the son of God and was also God and he died for people’s sins. I asked if she knew anything about his life as told in the Bible. She said that he lived a simple life and he was kind. I asked if she knew anything about his parents or where he was born. She said that she knew all of these things but she was stressed and could not recall. I advised her that I accepted that she was stressed, but I had difficulty accepting that she knew so little about Christianity if she was so committed to her new faith that she had left her country. She maintained that she had told the truth.

19. [Ms A] also gave evidence at the hearing. She confirmed that she met the applicant in about 2013. She said they began to attend [Church 2] together several weeks after they met. She could not recall exactly when this was but thought it was probably in the second half of the year. From then until April 2015 she and the applicant attended the church together most weeks. I noted that the applicant had stated that she did not go to church in [Suburb 2] very often in 2015 or 2016 and asked her to clarify. [Ms A] said that she went to France for four or five months every year and that after they started to attend [Church 1] in [Suburb 2] in 2015. She suffered from [Medical Condition 1] and it was too painful for her to attend church.  I observed that it appeared that she and the applicant had not attended church together very often. She said that they went frequently. She said that in December 2017 she found another Anglican Church in [Suburb 3] and she and the applicant had been attending that church since September 2018 and other church-goers could vouch for the applicant.

20. I asked [Ms A] to tell me about her Bible study classes. She said that about three years ago a Pentecostal pastor had suggested she establish the Bible class to fulfil the needs of some church members. The class was not attached to any church and the classes were mostly conducted in her home. She said that the applicant had commenced attending her Bible classes in September 2018.

21. Following the hearing [Ms A] wrote to the Tribunal. She said that since 2013 she had spent about 20 months in France and had also spent time visiting family in rural NSW, rural Victoria and Melbourne. In addition the applicant had spent time helping her family. She said that while they attended church together on many Sundays, there were many Sundays when they did not. With regard to the applicant’s knowledge of Christianity she said that Sunday sermons do not teach a lot about the Bible and the applicant would not have learned a lot by attending these services, particularly as her English is not very good. She said that the applicant had told her that she had a Farsi-English copy of the New Testament, but had not access to the Old Testament. She said that she believed that the applicant had been unable to answer my questions regarding her knowledge of Christianity and the Bible because her mind went blank during the hearing.

    Analysis of the applicant’s evidence

22. For the following reasons I found much of the evidence provided by the applicant in response to the NOITCC and in her submissions to the Tribunal to be lacking in credibility.

    The applicant’s husband

23. The applicant claims that her husband failed to provide an accurate account of her reasons for remaining in Australia when he was interviewed at the Australian Embassy because he had been warned against doing so by Iranian security officials.  I do not accept this claim. As set out in the NOITCC summary of his interview, the applicant’s husband told Australian officials that his wife and daughters opposed policies of the Iranian government and had converted to Christianity.  If the applicant’s husband had been fearful of speaking honestly about the applicant’s situation during his interview with Australian officials because he had been warned not to by Iranian security officials, I do not believe he would have made these statements.

24. The applicant claims that her husband was harassed and monitored by the Iranian authorities following 2012 because she and her daughters had converted to Christianity and as a result he was in semi-hiding.  I do not accept this claim.

25. In the first place, the applicant’s claim that her husband was monitored and harassed by the authorities and as a result he was in semi-hiding and moved from place to place following her departure in 2012, is at odds with her evidence that he worked for [Company 1] and [was employed in Occupation 1] until at least 2015.

26. Secondly, I found aspects of the applicant’s evidence regarding her husband’s problems confused and unconvincing.  For example, in her written response to the NOITCC the applicant said that her husband began to experience problems with the authorities after their son-in-law visited Iran in 2011. When asked for clarification of this statement at the hearing she said both that her husband’s problems began when their oldest daughter converted to Christianity in 2009 and that he began to experience problems 2011. She also gave differing accounts of her son-in-law’s visit in 2011. According to her response to the NOITCC he only remained in the country for a few hours. At the hearing she said that he remained in the country for several days. While I acknowledge that it is now some time since 2011, I do not believe that she would have forgotten whether he stayed a few hours or days.

27. Third and more significantly, the applicant’s husband travelled outside Iran in 2013, 2015 and 2016 which I find a clear indication that he was not in semi-hiding and was not of adverse interest to the Iranian authorities. In reaching this conclusion I have noted the applicant’s claim that her husband travelled to and from Iran illegally in order to avoid problems when he left Iran in 2013. This claim does not sit well with the evidence that he left Iran legally on two later occasions after being visited and warned to be careful by security officials.  Furthermore, I find the claim that he would leave Iran illegally because he was at risk of harm but not seek protection while he was outside the country and instead return illegally because he had an elderly mother far-fetched and implausible. I believe that the applicant concocted this claim when I observed that her husband’s ability to travel suggested that he was not of adverse interest to the Iranian authorities. I do not accept that the applicant’s husband left Iran illegally in 2013. Furthermore, her willingness to provide false evidence to overcome problems with her evidence reflects poorly on her overall credibility.

28. Finally, I am unaware of any evidence which suggests that the Iranian authorities would monitor and harass someone in Iran because members of their family had converted to Christianity abroad.  According to DFAT[3] Iranians who convert to Christianity outside the country are unlikely to face adverse attention from authorities upon return, provided they have not previously come to the attention of authorities for political activities conducted in Iran, maintain a low profile and do not engage in proselytisation or political activities within the country. They advise that Iranian authorities accept that many Iranians seek to live overseas for economic reasons. According to international observers they have little interest in prosecuting failed asylum seekers for activities conducted outside Iran, including in relation to protection claims and activities such as posting social media comments critical of the government or converting to Christianity. There is nothing in the evidence which suggests that the applicant or her daughter were involved in anything more that attending church in Australia. In these circumstances I find the claim that her husband, who is not a Christian convert, lost his job and was subjected to monitoring and harassment because she and her daughter converted to Christianity in Australia to be far-fetched and implausible. Some of the matters set out above are relatively minor and considered in isolation would not have caused me to reject the applicant’s claims regarding her husband’s circumstances in Iran. However, others are more significant and after considering all of the relevant evidence, I do not accept that her husband was harassed and monitored by the Iranian authorities or that he was in semi-hiding or that he failed to provide an accurate account of her reasons for remaining in Australia when he was interviewed at the Australian Embassy because he had been warned against doing so by Iranian security officials. I find that she concocted these claims in order to overcome the problem posed by the information provided by her husband during his interview with the Australian Embassy in Tehran.

    [3] DFAT Country Information Report Iran, 7 June 2018, p.23 & 49.

1. I also found the applicant’s evidence regarding her husband’s employment prior to 2012 unconvincing. She initially claimed he worked in the public sector but said she did not know the name of his employer, but finally agreed that he held the rank of [detail deleted] in the Iranian military or security forces. She claimed that his main role while working in this position was to teach first aid. While the applicant’s husband may have been involved in teaching or training of some kind I find the claim that someone who held the rank of [detail deleted] was engaged mostly in teaching first aid implausible. I also find the claim that the applicant had almost no knowledge of his role in the military or security forces implausible.  While the applicant’s husband’s profession is not relevant to this application, I find her failure to provide honest evidence regarding his work a further indication that she is not a credible witness.

2. The applicant claims that she is now estranged from her husband and he has threatened to tell the Iranian authorities that she has converted to Christianity if she returns to Iran. I do not accept this claim. I believe it is another example of the applicant concocting claims to support her case. This conclusion is supported by the fact that the despite claiming that she considered her husband to be an enemy and one of the main reasons she feared returning to Iran after he threatened to expose her conversion to Christianity to the Iranian authorities about three months before the November 2018 hearing, she did not withdraw her sponsorship of his spouse visa until after I asked her about the status of that application at that hearing. She said that she planned to withdraw her sponsorship but she was waiting for advice from her representative. I do not accept this explanation. If the applicant saw her husband as an enemy and feared he would seek to harm her albeit indirectly if she returned to Iran I believe she would have arranged to have her sponsorship of his spouse visa application cancelled as soon as possible. I also note that the claim that her husband had threatened to tell the authorities that she had converted to Christianity is at odds with the claim that her husband was harassed and in semi-hiding from the authorities because they were aware she and her daughters had converted.

   The applicant’s relationship with her family in Iran

3. The applicant claimed that her brother [Mr E] told her family that she had converted to Christianity in 2012. Her parents did not believe him at the time, but she believes that he told her mother about her conversion in late 2018. She claims that [Mr E] has threatened to burn her if she returns to Iran and that her family have severed all ties with her. She said that she was not sure why her family had ostracised her, but suggested it could be linked to her conversion or her problems with her husband. I do not accept these claims.

4. I found the applicant’s evidence regarding [Mr E’s] knowledge of her conversion and the threats he made against her confused and unconvincing. She initially claimed that he had received some kind of message on his telephone, but later said that she did not know how he learned she had become a Christian. In addition, I find the claim that [Mr E] became aware that she had converted to Christianity some two weeks after she arrived in Australia implausible. According to her evidence [Mr E] had been estranged from her family for many years and she did not convert until after her arrival in Australia. Finally, I find it impossible to reconcile her claim that her fear of [Mr E] is one of the main reasons she now fears returning to Iran with the fact that she chose to return to Iran and stay in Shiraz where her brother also resides for extended periods in 2013 and 2014. She claims that her brother did not harm her on either of these occasions because he was out of the city. However, this is at odds with the claim that her family is estranged from [Mr E].  

5. In light of the problems set out above and my finding regarding the applicant’s credibility in relation to other aspects of her evidence, I do not accept that her brother somehow became aware she had converted to Christianity, told her family what she had done and threatened to burn her if she returned to Iran.

6. I also found the applicant’s claim that her entire family has recently severed all ties with her to be lacking in credibility. There is no plausible or convincing reason for this sudden rejection. She suggested that it could be linked to her conversion to Christianity. However, if I accept her evidence at face value her siblings became aware she had converted to Christianity in 2012 and family members and [social media] friends in Iran had seen Christian posts on her [social media] page, but this did not cause any problems when she visited Iran in 2013 or 2014, or when she met one of her sisters in [Country 1] in 2015. It is not plausible that her siblings would suddenly sever ties with her in late 2018 because she had converted to Christianity in 2012.  Her claim that her mother recently became aware of her conversion might provide an explanation for the sudden change in attitude by other family members, but this claim is mere speculation at best and I find the claim that someone who had been estranged from her family for many years apart from occasional telephone contact with her mother would decide to visit her mother in late 2018 to pass on information which he had been aware of for about six years far-fetched and implausible.

100.   The applicant also suggested that her family might have rejected her for some reason linked to her problems with her husband. As discussed above, I do not accept that the applicant is estranged from her husband and it follows that I do not accept that her parents and siblings have severed ties with her because she and her husband have separated.

The applicant’s fear of returning to Iran in future

101.   The applicant claims that she currently fears returning to Iran because her husband and her brother wish to harm her and because she is a practicing Christian. As discussed above, I do not accept that the applicant’s husband or her brother wish or would seek to harm her in any way if she returned to Iran now or in the reasonably foreseeable future. I also find the claim that she is a practicing Christian to be lacking in credibility.

102.   In the first place I found her evidence regarding her participation in Christian churches and activities in Australia confused and unpersuasive. She said that she attended Iranian language services at [Church 1] in [Suburb 2] until a few months after she was granted a protection visa in January 2013.  After that she attended another protestant church in [Suburb 1] until 2015 when she returned to [Church 1]. She indicated that she continued to attend that church, but also said that she had recently begun to attend another church in [Suburb 3]. She initially stated that she had attended services in [Suburb 2] churches every week or two, but then said that in 2015 and 2016 she was busy looking after her daughters or grandchildren and occasionally attended different churches near where they lived.  She was unable to provide the full names of any of the churches she attended in [Suburb 2], and when asked if the Minister at [Church 1] which she claimed to have attended most recently would know her, indicated that this was unlikely as she did not always enter from the front and left immediately after saying her prayers. She also claimed that she had been attending Bible classes every Friday since before the NOITCC was issued in February 2017. However, when asked to comment on [Ms A’s] evidence that she commenced attending these classes in September 2018 she said she had difficulty remembering things, but did not dispute [Ms A’s] evidence or claim to have been attending classes in 2017 or earlier in 2018.

103.   In the second place, she had almost no knowledge of Christianity or the Bible. I acknowledge that not all Christians have a detailed knowledge of their faith or the contents of the Bible.  I also acknowledge that the applicant was anxious and nervous during the hearing. However, the applicant claims to have been attracted to Christianity for many years and to have attended church services in Australia for some six years, some of them in her native Farsi language. She also claims to have attended Bible classes in the Farsi language for some time after arriving in Australia. She claims to own a Bible. In these circumstances I do not accept that she would know so little about the faith she claims to have adopted and would be unable to relate even in general terms a single story from the gospels she claims to have read.

104.   After considering all of the relevant evidence, I do not accept that the applicant genuinely converted to Christianity or that she is a practicing Christian. I accept that she attended church in the period between her arrival in Australia and the granting of her protection visa, in light of the fact that she ceased attending that church shortly after obtaining her protection visa and other problems with her evidence set out above I believe that she attended church during that period in order to support her claim for protection in Australia. I also accept that she began to attend Bible classes and a church in [Suburb 3] a few months before the hearing. However, I believe she did this to support the claim that she is a Christian, not because is she genuinely committed to that faith. I do not accept that she attended church regularly or frequently after she obtained a protection visa in 2013.

105.   In reaching this conclusion I have considered the evidence provided by [Ms A]. However, it is clear that her initial claim that she and the applicant attended church together regularly or frequently after they met in 2013 is not correct.  According to her later evidence she is frequently absent from [City 1] and she was unable to attend church for an extended period in 2015 because of [Medical Condition 1]. In addition, she confirmed that the applicant was often busy with her family and unable to attend church. It is clear that [Ms A] is prepared to exaggerate and embellish evidence in order to support her friend’s application. I have given little weight to her evidence.

106.   I have also noted the letter from [Pastor B] from [Church 2] which states that he met the applicant when she began to attend his church on a regular basis in 2013/14 and attended a church camp in 2015. It provides no further details and does not say when the applicant ceased to attend the church. It may be that the applicant attended [Church 2] at some time in the past.  However, I do not accept that she attended services there regularly in 2013/2014 or at any other time and there is nothing in [Pastor B’s] brief letter which persuades me that the applicant is or ever was a genuine Christian.

107.   Finally I have noted the statements from [Mr and Ms C] who appear to be friends of the applicant and also members of [Church 2]. However, the statements contain very little detail and [Ms C] states that the applicant began attending the church in about mid-2015, which is at odds with the evidence given by the applicant, [Ms A] and [Pastor B]. I have given no weight to these statements.

108.   I have also considered the possibility that the applicant would be perceived to be Christian convert if she returned to Iran. There is credible evidence before me which suggests that the applicant was perceived to be a Christian convert during her visits to Iran in 2013 and 2014. Furthermore, as noted above DFAT advise that Iranians who convert to Christianity outside the country are unlikely to face adverse attention on return unless they engage in activities such in proselytising. As I do not accept that the applicant is a genuine convert it follows that I do not accept that she will engage in any activities associated with the Christian religion if she returns to Iran. I do not accept that the applicant would be perceived to be a Christian convert if she returned to Iran.

Does the information provided by applicant’s husband when interviewed by the Australia Embassy in Tehran indicate that the applicant failed to provide correct information in her protection visa application?

109.   The NOITCC identifies the applicant’s responses to questions 42 to 48 as incidences of non-compliance with s.101(b) of the Act.  It notes that the claims set out in her responses to these questions are at odds with information provided by her husband during his interview with the Australian Embassy in Tehran. While I do not accept that the applicant’s husband failed to speak frankly about his wife’s circumstances when interviewed at the Australian Embassy in Tehran because he had been warned against doing so by Iranian security officials, the mere fact that he appears to have provided evidence which contradicted the applicant’s claims regarding problems she faced in Iran during this interview is not sufficient to satisfy me that she failed to provide correct information in her protection visa application.  If this had been the only issue raised in the NOITCC I would not have been satisfied that the applicant had provided incorrect information in response to questions 42 to 48.

Do the applicant’s visits to Iran in 2013 and 2014 indicate that the applicant failed to provide correct information in her protection visa application?

110.   The NOITCC identifies the applicant’s responses to questions 42 to 48 as incidences of non-compliance with s.101(b) of the Act.  It states that her answers to these questions were incorrect because, despite claiming that she was known to Iranian authorities who had frequently harassed and threatened harm prior to her departure from Iran because her daughters had converted to Christianity and because she was interested in Christianity, and that she was seeking protection in Australia so that she would not have to return to Iran where the authorities would seek to persecute, she had returned voluntarily to Iran on four occasions after she was granted protection, and remained there for significant periods of time without apparent issue or impediment which indicated that she did not have an adverse profile and had not experienced the harassment claimed in her application.

111.   As noted above, the applicant claimed that she had only travelled to Iran twice after being granted protection in Australia, the first occasion being from [October] 2013 to  [December] 2013 some 15 months after and the second from [May] 2014 to [August] 2014. This accords with some of the information provided by her husband and also appears to be supported by entries in her travel documents.  I accept the applicant only travelled to Iran twice and that the incoming passenger cards related to the other trips were incorrectly completed due to an error or misunderstanding.

112.   The only problem which the applicant claims to have encountered during either visit occurred when her mobile phone was inspected and  Christian material on her [social media] page was discovered by Iranian officials  as she was about to board a plane to return to Australia in August 2014. I do not accept this claim.

113.   In her response to the NOITCC she claimed that she was taken to a room and questioned by the authorities about pro-Christian entries on her [social media] page, but she was allowed to leave after claiming that someone must have hacked her account.  At the hearing she said that she had not been taken to a room, but had been briefly taken aside and had her mobile phone examined. While the difference between these claims may appear to be minor, in my view the applicant would have remembered whether she was taken into a room to be questioned or merely delayed for about 10 minutes while her phone was examined. At the very least her differing accounts demonstrate that she is willing to embellish evidence to support her case.  Despite this I would have been prepared to give her the benefit of the doubt and accept that she had been questioned by officials at the airport if this was the only problem with her evidence. However, this is not the case. As set out in detail above and below, I did not find the applicant to be a truthful or a credible witness and I find that this claim was also concocted to support her application.

114.   In my view the applicant’s voluntary return to Iran on two occasions, the length of her stay in Iran on each occasion and the circumstances of her stay on each occasion indicate that she did not genuinely fear returning to Iran as claimed in her application for a protection visa. I am also of the view that the fact that she did not encounter any problems during either of her visits to Iran is a strong indication that she did not leave Iran for the reasons claimed in this application.

115.   The applicant claims that she returned to Iran in 2013 and 2014 because of an urgent need to visit her mother who was ill and in hospital. I acknowledge that refugees will sometimes risk harm for urgent reasons such as visiting a seriously ill or dying relative. However, I found the applicant’s claim that she returned to Iran in 2013 and 2014 because her desire or need to see her mother outweighed her fear of harm unpersuasive.  Even if I accept her evidence at face value, there is no suggestion that her mother’s health problems were so dire that the applicant might never see her again or that her mother needed care or support which only the applicant could provide. The applicant’s father remains in Iran and three of her siblings live in Shiraz, (although it appears that one may be estranged from her family) and there is no suggestion that they were unwilling or unable to assist her mother. Furthermore, if the applicant had returned to Iran because of an urgent need to see her sick mother I would expect her to leave the country as soon as possible after achieving this goal. However, the applicant remained in Iran for extended periods on both occasions which I find to be a strong indication that she was not fearful to return to Iran or to reside in Iran as claimed in her protection visa application.

116.   It has been suggested that the applicant was able to avoid problems in Iran by not practicing Christianity and by keeping a low profile. I acknowledge that Iranians who convert to Christianity outside Iran are unlikely to face problems with the authorities on return to Iran if they keep a low profile and do not practice their religion. However, the applicant claimed that she was already of adverse interest to the Iranian authorities prior to her departure.  Despite this she was able to enter and exit Iran through Tehran Airport using her own passport. More significantly she returned to Shiraz where she claims to have been harassed and threatened prior her departure and stayed with her parents and her husband. She also appears to have met with family members and at least some friends in Shiraz and Tehran. I do not accept that the applicant avoided problems in Iran during her extended visits by not practicing Christianity and keeping a low profile.

Conclusion on non-compliance

117.   I am satisfied that the applicant fabricated the claims that she was harassed and threatened by the authorities in Iran and that she feared persecution because her daughters had converted to Christianity and because she was interested in that religion. I am satisfied that she was not of adverse interest to the Iranian authorities or anyone else in Iran at the time she lodged her claim for protection. 

118.   For these reasons, I find that there was non-compliance with s.101 by the applicant in the way described in the s.107 notice.

Should the visa be cancelled?

119. As the Tribunal has decided that there was non-compliance in the way described in the notice given to the applicant under s.107 of the Act, it is necessary to consider whether the visa should be cancelled pursuant to s.109(1). Cancellation in this context is discretionary, as there are no mandatory cancellation circumstances prescribed under s.109(2).

120. In exercising this power, the Tribunal must consider the applicant’s response (if any) to the s.107 notice about the non-compliance, and have regard to any prescribed circumstances: s.109(1)(b) and (c). The prescribed circumstances are set out in r.2.41 of the Migration Regulations 1994. Briefly, they are:

The correct information

121.   The correct information is that the applicant did not leave Iran and seek protection in Australia because she was of adverse interest to the Iran authorities and did not fear harm in Iran because her daughters had converted to Christianity or for any other reason.

122.   This consideration weighs heavily towards cancellation of her protection visa.

The content of the genuine document (if any)

123.   This is not relevant in the present case as the NOITCC relied solely on s.101 of the Act and not on s.103 of the Act (relating to bogus documents).

Whether the decision to grant a visa or immigration clear the visa holder was based, wholly or partly, on incorrect information or a bogus document

124.   I am satisfied that the delegate’s decision was based partly on the applicant’s false claims that she was of adverse interest to the authorities in Iran prior to her departure in 2012. The decision was also based on the delegate’s acceptance of the applicant’s claim that she had converted to Christianity and was practicing her faith in Australia. As discussed above, I also find this lacks credibility.

125.   This consideration also weighs towards the cancellation of her protection visa.

The circumstances in which the non-compliance occurred

126.   I find that the applicant knowingly and deliberately provided incorrect information regarding her fear of returning to Iran in order to obtain a visa and reside in Australia. She continued to provide incorrect information in support of her protection visa application and when she responded to the NOITCC. She continued to assert that she feared serious harm from the Iranian authorities and also falsely claimed that she would be at risk of harm from her husband and her brother. 

127.   This consideration weighs heavily towards the cancellation of the applicant's protection visa.

The present circumstances of the visa holder

128.   The applicant’s children and grandchildren are in Australia. Her husband remains in Iran. At the hearing she said that her children and grandchildren were dependent on her and would suffer if she left Australia. When asked for more information she said her daughter’s happiness depended on her remaining in Australia as they spend a lot of time together and depended on each other.  I asked her about her relationship to her grandchildren. She said that she played a big role in the lives of her grandchildren she said that her daughter would not be able to cope if she left Australia. She said that she cooked and cleaned for her daughter, but also said that her daughter only studied part time in order to take care of her.  I advised her that it would be useful for have more information about her role in the lives of her children and grandchild, if possible from an independent source. Following the hearing she provided evidence from her GP and [Ms A] which claimed she relied on her children and grandchildren for emotional and psychological support which would not be available to her if she returned to Iran. [Ms A] also submitted that the applicant’s children and grandchildren would be deprived of the applicant’s love, wisdom and practical support if she returned to Iran.

129.   I accept that the applicant has a strong bond to her family in Australia. I accept that the applicant’s Australian citizen or permanent resident children would be adversely affected to some degree by the decision to cancel her visa.

130.   The applicant has also provided evidence from her GP and [Organisation 1] which indicates that she is suffering from depression and anxiety, mostly related to the possible cancellation of her visa. Her doctor has also said that she relies on her children for emotional and psychological support which cannot be replaced by her relatives in Iran. However, as discussed above, I do not accept that she has been rejected by her husband and ostracised by her husband who would no doubt provide her with some emotional and psychological support if she returned to Iran.

131.   I give this consideration some weight in favour of the applicant.

The subsequent behaviour of the visa holder concerning his or her obligations under Subdivision C of Division 3 of Part 2 of the Act

132.   In her response to the notice of intention to cancel her visa because her return to Iran in 2013 and 2014 suggested that she had not provided an honest account of her circumstances in Iran, the applicant maintained that her claims were true. She continued to maintain that that this was the case in her submissions to the Tribunal. As discussed above, in order to overcome the problem created by her voluntary return to Iran she provided further false evidence regarding a number of matters, including her husband’s circumstances, her relationship with her husband, her brother and other members of her family in Iran and her involvement with Christianity in Australia. She continues to maintain that her original claims were true.

133.    This consideration weighs towards the cancellation of the applicant's protection visa.

Any other instances of non-compliance by the visa holder known to the Minister

134.   There is no evidence before me which indicates that there have been other instances of non-compliance by the applicant.

135.   I give this consideration no weight in favour of the applicant or in favour of cancellation.

The time that has elapsed since the non-compliance

136.   The relevant non-compliance occurred on 23 August 2012 when the applicant completed her application for protection. Nearly seven years have elapsed since the non-compliance took place.

137.   I give this consideration some weight in favour of the applicant.

Any breaches of the law since the non-compliance and the seriousness of those breaches

138.   There is no evidence before me which indicates that there have been any breaches of the law by the applicant since the non-compliance.

139.   I give this consideration no weight in favour of the applicant or in favour of cancellation.

Any contribution made by the holder to the community

140.   As discussed above, I accept that the applicant has provided some assistance and support to her daughters and grandchildren while she has resided in Australia since being granted a protection visa. No evidence has been provided which suggests that she had made any other contribution to the community during this time.

141.   I give this consideration some weight in favour of the applicant.

Other considerations

142.   While these factors must be considered, they do not represent an exhaustive statement of the circumstances that might properly be considered to be relevant in any given case: MIAC v Khadgi (2010) 190 FCR 248. The Tribunal may also have regard to lawful government policy. The relevant policy is set out in the Department’s Procedural Advice Manual (PAM3) ‘General visa cancellation powers’, which refers to matters such as the consequences of cancelling the visa, international obligations and any other relevant matters.

143.   Non-refoulement obligations are obligations not to forcibly return, deport or expel a person to a place where there will be a risk of harm. Australia is a signatory to a number of international instruments which give rise to non-refoulement obligations. Australia is a signatory to the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees as amended by the 1967 Protocol (together called the Refugees Convention), the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (the CAT), and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and its Second Optional Protocol (the ICCPR).

144.   ‘Non-refoulement obligations’ are not confined to the protection obligations to which s.36(2) of the Act refers: see Ibrahim v MHA [2019] FCAFC 89 at [103]. It is defined in the Act to include non-refoulement obligations that may arise because Australia is a party to one of the instruments mentioned above, or any obligations accorded by customary international law that are of a similar kind.

145.   If the applicant’s protection visa is cancelled, she would be barred under s.46(1) of the Act from making a valid application for a further visa. She would also be barred under s.48A(1B) of the Act from making a further application for a protection visa while in the migration zone.

146.   Accordingly, I consider the visa cancellation would lead to the applicant being removed from Australia, and have considered whether this would breach Australia’s international non-refoulement obligations.

147.   A detailed international treaty obligation assessment was not undertaken by the Department in relation to the applicant. However, the delegate found that the applicant was not a person to whom Australia has non-refoulement obligations.

148.   The applicant’s reasons for currently fearing to return to Iran were discussed at hearing. She claimed that she continued to be at risk of harm because she has converted to Christianity and also claimed that her husband and brother would seek to harm her. As discussed above, I find all of these claims to lack credibility. I do not accept that she has converted to Christianity or that she would be perceived to have converted to Christianity or that her husband or brother have threatened to harm her if she returns to Iran or that her family have rejected her.

149.   After considering all of the relevant evidence, I am not satisfied that there is a real chance or a real risk that the applicant would suffer serious harm or significant harm for any of the reasons claimed if she returns to Iran now or in the reasonably foreseeable future. There is nothing in the evidence before me which suggests that Australia had non-refoulement obligations in relation to any of the international instruments to which Australia is a signatory. I am therefore not satisfied that she is a person in respect of whom Australia has a non-refoulement obligation.

150.   I give this consideration no weight in favour of the applicant.

151.   I have also considered the possibility that the applicant would be subject to indefinite detention if her protection visa is cancelled. As discussed above, the applicant is not owed protection obligations and may voluntarily return to Iran, particularly as she has done so on two occasions after being granted a visa without experiencing problems. In these circumstances, I am satisfied that she would not be subject to indefinite detention if her protection visa is cancelled. On the evidence before me, there are no persons in Australia whose visas may be cancelled under s.140 of the Act as a result of the cancellation of her protection visa.

152.   I give this consideration no weight in favour of the applicant.

153.   I have also considered if the cancellation of the applicant’s visa would raise any issues in relation to the Australia's obligations under the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) and the best interests of any children in Australia. However, I am not satisfied that this is the case. The applicant has several grandchildren in Australia and I accept that she has a close relationship with them. However, her grandchildren live with their parents and there is nothing in the evidence which suggests that they lack care or support from their parents. They also have aunts in Australia who can also provide extended family support. Furthermore, the evidence suggest that the applicant is heavily dependent on her adult children for support, which suggests that there may be limits on the care and support she is able to provide to her grandchildren.

154.   I am mindful of the fact that a decision to cancel a protection visa requires careful consideration of the factors in favour of and against the cancellation of the visa.  

155.   I accept that the applicant has resided in Australia since August 2012, although I note that she had spent extended periods outside the country during that time. I also accept that she has a strong bond with her Australian children and grandchildren. However, on the evidence currently before me I am not satisfied that they would experience significant hardship if she left Australia. I also accept that she currently relies on her adult children for emotional and psychological support. However, I do not accept that she is estranged from her husband or extended family in Iran and that she would lack such support if she returned to Iran.

156.   On the other hand, as discussed above, I have found she provided false evidence in her protection visa application and that these claims were significant in her been granted a protection visa.  Despite claiming that she was of adverse interest to the Iranian authorities and would be harassed or harmed if she returned to her homeland, she visited twice for extended periods after being granted protection in Australia. In her response to the NOITCC she continued to maintain that the claims her initial application were true and provided incorrect information in relation to reasons for returning to Iran and her experiences while there. Furthermore, as discussed in detail above, she continued to provide false evidence on a range of matters, including the claim that she has converted to Christianity, during the hearing. There are no obligations under relevant international agreements which would be breached if her protection visa is cancelled. Indefinite detention is not a likely consequence of the cancellation of her protection visa.

157.   Despite claiming that she was of adverse interest to the Iranian authorities and would be harassed or harmed if she returned to her homeland, she visited twice for extended periods after being granted protection in Australia. In her response to the NOITCC she continued to maintain that the claims her initial application were true and as discussed above, I have found that she provided incorrect information in her response to the NOITCC in relation to reasons for returning to Iran and her experiences while there. As discussed in detail above, she continued to provide false evidence on a range of matters, including the claim that she has converted to Christianity, during the hearing. There are no obligations under relevant international agreements which would be breached if her protection visa is cancelled. Indefinite detention is not a likely consequence of the cancellation of her protection visa.

158.   In my view there is a public interest in ensuring the integrity of Australia’s protection visa program and this public interest would be inconsistent with the suggestion that persons prepared to lie in the process should benefit. Accordingly, considerations serving this interest should be given significant weight.  In the applicant’s case, having carefully considered all the relevant matters, I am of the view that the factors in favour of the cancellation of the protection visa outweigh the factors against it. Therefore, I have concluded that her protection visa should be cancelled.  

159.   The Tribunal has decided that there was non-compliance by the applicant in the way described in the notice given under s.107 of the Act. Further, having regard to all the relevant circumstances, as discussed above, the Tribunal concludes that the visa should be cancelled.

DECISION

160.   The Tribunal affirms the decision to cancel the applicant’s Subclass 866 (Protection) visa.

Roslyn Smidt
Member

ATTACHMENT – Migration Act 1958 (extracts)

5Interpretation

(1)In this Act, unless the contrary intention appears:

bogus document, in relation to a person, means a document that the Minister reasonably suspects is a document that:

(a)    purports to have been, but was not, issued in respect of the person; or

(b)     is counterfeit or has been altered by a person who does not have authority to do so; or

(c)    was obtained because of a false or misleading statement, whether or not made knowingly.

97Interpretation

In this Subdivision:

application form, in relation to a non‑citizen, means a form on which a non‑citizen applies for a visa, being a form that regulations made for the purposes of section 46 allow to be used for making the application.

passenger card has the meaning given by subsection 506(2) and, for the purposes of section 115, includes any document provided for by regulations under paragraph 504(1)(c).

Note:Bogus document is defined in subsection 5(1).

98Completion of visa application

A non‑citizen who does not fill in his or her application form or passenger card is taken to do so if he or she causes it to be filled in or if it is otherwise filled in on his or her behalf.

99Information is answer

Any information that a non‑citizen gives or provides, causes to be given or provided, or that is given or provided on his or her behalf, to the Minister, an officer, an authorised system, a person or the Tribunal, or the Immigration Assessment authority, reviewing a decision under this Act in relation to the non‑citizen’s application for a visa is taken for the purposes of section 100, paragraphs 101(b) and 102(b) and sections 104 and 105 to be an answer to a question in the non‑citizen’s application form, whether the information is given or provided orally or in writing and whether at an interview or otherwise.

100Incorrect answers

For the purposes of this Subdivision, an answer to a question is incorrect even though the person who gave or provided the answer, or caused the answer to be given or provided, did not know that it was incorrect.

101Visa applications to be correct

A non‑citizen must fill in or complete his or her application form in such a way that:

(a)all questions on it are answered; and

(b)no incorrect answers are given or provided.

107Notice of incorrect applications

(1)If the Minister considers that the holder of a visa who has been immigration cleared (whether or not because of that visa) did not comply with section 101, 102, 103, 104 or 105 or with subsection (2) in a response to a notice under this section, the Minister may give the holder a notice:

(a)    giving particulars of the possible non‑compliance; and

(b)     stating that, within a period stated in the notice as mentioned in subsection (1A), the holder may give the Minister a written response to the notice that:

(i)if the holder disputes that there was non‑compliance:

(A)shows that there was compliance; and

(B)in case the Minister decides under section 108 that, in spite of the statement under sub‑subparagraph (A), there was non‑compliance—shows cause why the visa should not be cancelled; or

(ii)if the holder accepts that there was non‑compliance:

(A)give reasons for the non‑compliance; and

(B)shows cause why the visa should not be cancelled; and

(c)    stating that the Minister will consider cancelling the visa:

(i)if the holder gives the Minister oral or written notice, within the period stated as mentioned in subsection (1A), that he or she will not give a written response—when that notice is given; or

(ii)if the holder gives the Minister a written response within that period—when the response is given; or

(iii)otherwise—at the end of that period; and

(d)     setting out the effect of sections 108, 109, 111 and 112; and

(e)    informing the holder that the holder’s obligations under section 104 or 105 are not affected by the notice under this section; and

(f)    requiring the holder:

(i)to tell the Minister the address at which the holder is living; and

(ii)if the holder changes that address before the Minister notifies the holder of the Minister’s decision on whether there was non‑compliance by the holder—to tell the Minister the changed address.

(1A)The period to be stated in the notice under subsection (1) must be:

(a)    in respect of the holder of a temporary visa—the period prescribed by the regulations or, if no period is prescribed, a reasonable period; or

(b)     otherwise—14 days.

(1B)Regulations prescribing a period for the purposes of paragraph (1A)(a) may prescribe different periods and state when a particular period is to apply, which, without limiting the generality of the power, may be to:

(a)    visas of a stated class; or

(b)     visa holders in stated circumstances; or

(c)    visa holders in a stated class of people (who may be visa holders in a particular place); or

(d)     visa holders in a stated class of people (who may be visa holders in a particular place) in stated circumstances.

(2)If the visa holder responds to the notice, he or she must do so without making any incorrect statement.

108Decision about non‑compliance

The Minister is to:

(a)consider any response given by a visa holder in the way required by paragraph 107(1)(b); and

(b)decide whether there was non‑compliance by the visa holder in the way described in the notice.

109Cancellation of visa if information incorrect

(1)The Minister, after:

(a)    deciding under section 108 that there was non‑compliance by the holder of a visa; and

(b)     considering any response to the notice about the non‑compliance given in a way required by paragraph 107(1)(b); and

(c)    having regard to any prescribed circumstances;

may cancel the visa.

(2)If the Minister may cancel a visa under subsection (1), the Minister must do so if there exist circumstances declared by the regulations to be circumstances in which a visa must be cancelled.