1715184 (Refugee)

The applicant sought review of a decision to cancel his Subclass 866 (Protection) visa. The dispute centred on whether the applicant had provided incorrect information in his visa application and subsequent responses, leading to the cancellation of his visa. The matter was heard by Rodger Shanahan, a member of the Tribunal.

The legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the applicant had failed to comply with section 101 of the *Migration Act 1958* by providing incorrect answers in his visa application, and if so, whether there were compelling circumstances not to cancel his visa under section 109 of the Act. Specifically, the Tribunal had to determine the veracity of the applicant's claims regarding persecution due to tribal warfare between the Al Shinawa and Farhan tribes, and the circumstances surrounding his return to Iraq.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's claims of being targeted by the Farhan tribe due to tribal conflict were fabricated. This conclusion was based on the applicant's inconsistent and unconvincing evidence regarding his tribal affiliation and the alleged persecution. The Tribunal also noted that the applicant had returned to Iraq on two occasions for extended periods without facing difficulties, which undermined his claims of being of interest to any hostile groups. Furthermore, the Tribunal found inconsistencies and fabrications in the applicant's explanations for his movements within Iraq and the circumstances of his sons' care. Consequently, the Tribunal was satisfied that the applicant had not complied with section 101 of the Act, as described in the notice issued under section 107.

Given the finding of non-compliance, the Tribunal considered whether the visa should be cancelled under section 109(1) of the Act. As cancellation under this provision is discretionary and no mandatory cancellation circumstances were prescribed, the Tribunal was required to assess if there were compelling reasons not to cancel the visa. However, the Tribunal did not find any such compelling circumstances. Therefore, the Tribunal affirmed the decision to cancel the applicant's Subclass 866 (Protection) visa.