1726615 (Refugee)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal affirmed the decision to cancel the applicant's Subclass 866 (Protection) visa. The applicant, who arrived in Australia in April 2010 as an unauthorised maritime arrival, had applied for a protection visa based on claims of fearing harm from his tribe in Iraq due to a perceived conversion to Christianity. The Tribunal's decision focused on the applicant's credibility and the veracity of the information provided in his visa application and subsequent statements.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicant had complied with section 101 of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth), which requires visa applications to be completed without incorrect answers. This involved determining if the applicant had provided false or misleading information regarding his reasons for fearing harm in Iraq, specifically concerning his alleged religious conversion and the associated risks from his tribe. The Tribunal also considered whether the applicant's voluntary returns to Iraq after being granted a protection visa indicated a loss of refugee status or a re-availing of protection from his home country.

The Tribunal found the applicant's evidence to be largely not credible. It noted inconsistencies and shifts in his explanations regarding how he obtained an Iraqi passport in Baghdad in 2012, his reasons for travelling to and residing in Iraq on two separate occasions for extended periods, and his claims of residing solely in Erbil to avoid harm. The Tribunal concluded that the applicant had not been truthful about his movements and activities in Iraq, particularly his entry and exit through Baghdad International Airport, which contradicted his claims of fearing harm and residing exclusively in Erbil. Consequently, the Tribunal was satisfied that the applicant had provided incorrect information in his protection visa application, specifically regarding his fear of harm from his tribe due to a perceived conversion to Christianity. The Tribunal determined that the decision to grant the visa was based, at least in part, on this incorrect information.

Ultimately, the Tribunal affirmed the cancellation of the applicant's protection visa. It found that the factors favouring cancellation, particularly the applicant's prolonged voluntary returns to Iraq and the provision of incorrect information in his visa application, outweighed the factors against cancellation, such as the time elapsed since the non-compliance and the applicant's current status as a permanent resident holding a resident return visa. The Tribunal concluded that the seriousness of deliberately providing incorrect information, without which the visa would not have been granted, was a significant factor in its decision.