1722509 (Refugee)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal considered the decision to cancel the protection visa of an Iranian national. The applicant had arrived in Australia as an unauthorised maritime arrival in March 2011, claiming to fear persecution in Iran due to his alleged involvement in anti-government protests and his spouse's work. The cancellation of his visa was based on allegations of non-compliance with section 101 of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth), specifically providing incorrect answers in his visa application.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicant had provided incorrect answers to questions 43, 44, 45, and 46 of his visa application form, as particularised in the Notice of Intention to Consider Cancellation. This notice alleged that the applicant and his spouse had travelled to Iran in March 2015, which contradicted his claims of fearing harm if he returned. The Tribunal was required to determine if this alleged travel constituted a failure to provide correct information, thereby engaging the Minister's power to cancel the visa under section 109 of the Act.

The Tribunal affirmed the decision to cancel the visa. It found that the applicant's explanations for the presence of airline tickets to Iran and photographs on his mobile phone were not credible. The Tribunal noted that the applicant had initially claimed to have left Iran due to fear of the Ettela'at and the Iranian government, and involvement in anti-government activities. However, he later explained that the travel tickets were for a potential visit to his ill mother-in-law, which was ultimately abandoned in favour of obtaining false passports to travel to a third country. The Tribunal found the applicant's account of obtaining and using false passports, and the subsequent destruction of these documents, to be inconsistent and lacking in corroboration. Furthermore, the Tribunal was not satisfied that the applicant had provided correct information regarding his movements and intentions, leading to the conclusion that he had failed to comply with his obligations under section 101 of the Act.