1720247 (Refugee)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal considered the cancellation of the applicant's protection visa. The applicant, an Iranian national, had been granted a protection visa based on claims of persecution due to his Kurdish ethnicity, past targeting by the Basij, criticism of the regime, desertion from national service, and illegal departure from Iran on a false passport. Upon re-entering Australia, the applicant was found to possess an Iranian passport in his own name, showing a lawful exit from Iran. This led the delegate to cancel his visa on the grounds that he had provided false information and bogus documentation in his visa application.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicant had failed to comply with the requirements of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth) by providing incorrect information or bogus documents in his application for a protection visa, thereby engaging section 109 of the Act. Specifically, the Tribunal had to determine if the applicant's claims regarding his departure from Iran on a false passport due to desertion from national service were credible, and if the subsequent acquisition of a passport in his own name was consistent with his asserted adverse profile in Iran. The Tribunal also considered whether the notice issued under section 107 of the Act complied with statutory requirements.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's account of departing Iran on a false passport due to desertion and subsequently obtaining a new passport in his own name through bribery was implausible and lacked credibility. The Tribunal reasoned that if the applicant truly had an adverse profile and was a deserter, it would be illogical to apply for and obtain a passport in his own name, which would likely alert authorities, and then arrange for specific officials to facilitate his departure and re-entry. The Tribunal concluded that the applicant did not depart Iran illegally on a false passport and therefore would not attract adverse attention from Iranian authorities upon return. Consequently, the Tribunal was not satisfied that the applicant had provided incorrect answers in his visa application concerning his departure from Iran.

The Tribunal affirmed the decision to cancel the applicant's Subclass 866 (Protection) visa.