1730528 (Refugee)

1730528 (Refugee) [2019] AATA 157 (14 January 2019)
DECISION RECORD
DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division
CASE NUMBER:  1730528
COUNTRY OF REFERENCE:                  Malaysia
MEMBER:Alison Murphy
DATE:14 January 2019
PLACE OF DECISION:  Melbourne
DECISION:The Tribunal affirms the decision to cancel the applicant’s Subclass 866 (Protection) visa.
Statement made on 14 January 2019 at 11:54am

CATCHWORDS
REFUGEE – cancellation – protection visa – Malaysia – threats of torture and death from father – non-compliance with s 101(b) – provided incorrect answers in visa application – provided incorrect information to Tribunal – credibility issues – parents supportive of marriage – best interests of the child – decision under review affirmed
LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss 36, 99, 101, 107, 109, 140, 438, 424A,
Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth), r 2.41
CASES
MIAC v Khadgi (2010) 190 FCR 248
MIAC v SZQRB [2013] FCAFC 33
Wan v MIMA [2001] FCA 568
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

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).
The applicant is a [age]-year-old Malaysian female who first arrived in Australia [in] November 2012 as the holder of a [visitor] visa valid until 28 February 2013. She applied for a protection visa on 18 May 2015, claiming to fear harm from her parents because of her relationship with her partner. A delegate of the Minister refused to grant the applicant a protection visa on 19 November 2015, not accepting the applicant was a person to whom Australia owed protection.
The applicant sought a review of the delegate’s decision from this Tribunal and on 19 April 2016 the Tribunal (differently constituted) found that the applicant satisfied the criteria in s.36(2)(aa) of the Act. In particular the Tribunal accepted her claims to have been threatened, detained and physically harmed by her father because of her relationship with her partner [Mr A]. The Tribunal accepted that if returned to Malaysia, there was a real risk the applicant would be subjected to assault, significant harassment and other forms of treatment or punishment because of her father’s objection to her relationship with [Mr A].
The Department of Home Affairs (the Department) subsequently became aware of information that it considered contradicted the applicant’s claims for protection, including that the applicant’s parents attended her wedding to [Mr A] in Australia as well as other information that the delegate considered indicated that her parents were in fact supportive of that relationship.
In a notice issued under s.107 of the Act dated 6 September 2017, a delegate of the Minister informed the applicant that she considered she had not complied with s.101(b) of the Act in that she had provided incorrect information in her application for a protection visa about her parents’ objection to her relationship and her fear of harm from her father.
On 1 December 2017 a delegate of the Minister cancelled the applicant’s visa and on 4 December 2017 the applicant applied to this Tribunal for a review of the decision.
The issues in the review are whether there was non-compliance in the way described in the notice sent to the applicant, and if so, whether the visa should be cancelled. A summary of the relevant law is set out in Attachment A.
For the following reasons, the Tribunal has concluded that the decision to cancel the applicant’s visa should be affirmed.
HISTORY OF PROCEEDINGS
The applicant and her husband [Mr A] appeared before the Tribunal on 18 October 2018 to give evidence and present arguments and this application was heard together with the review application of [Mr A] (AAT proceedings 1730529).
The Tribunal hearing was conducted with the assistance of an interpreter in the Mandarin and English languages.
The applicant was not initially represented in her review application. On 25 October 2018 the Tribunal wrote to the applicant pursuant to the processes set out in s.424A of the Act. The applicant subsequently appointed a representative who made submissions and provided further documents to the Tribunal.
Non-disclosure certificate
The departmental file contains a certificate issued pursuant to s.438(1)(a) of the Act dated 12 December 2017. At the commencement of the hearing the Tribunal advised the applicant of the existence of the certificate and the reasons given by the Department for issuing that certificate. The Tribunal advised the applicant that the certificate prevented it from disclosing some parts of her file, because the information and documents covered by the certificate related to third parties. The Tribunal gave the applicant a copy of the certificate at the hearing and invited her to make submissions about the validity of the certificate, either at the hearing or after the hearing in writing if she preferred.
The Tribunal advised the applicant that the information covered by the certificate related to the Department’s investigation of her family members’ travel into and out of Australia around the time of her wedding in September 2015. The Tribunal advised the applicant that to the extent it considered that information was adverse to her review application, the Tribunal would provide further details of that information and give her an opportunity to respond to it. Further details of that information were provided to the applicant at hearing and in the Tribunal’s letter pursuant to s.424A of the Act.
No submissions were received by the applicant about the validity of the certificate, either during or after the hearing.
THE SECTION 107 NOTICE
Where a notice is issued that does not comply with the requirements in s.107, the power to cancel the visa does not arise.
On the departmental file is a copy of the Notice of Intention to Consider Cancellation (NOICC) dated 6 September 2017 advising the applicant that her visa may be cancelled under s.109 because it appeared she may not have complied with s.101(b) (visa applications to be correct) of the Act. The applicant was invited to respond to the NOICC and she responded to the s.107 notice by way of a statutory declaration dated 19 September 2017.
No issue has been raised in this review by the applicant as to the validity of this notice. Considering that document as a whole, the Tribunal is satisfied it sufficiently informed the applicant of the basis upon which the cancellation was being considered and gave her the required opportunity to respond.
The Tribunal is 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?
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. The non-compliance identified and particularised in the s.107 notice was non-compliance with s.101.
In the notice issued under s.107 of the Act dated 6 September 2017, a delegate of the Minister informed the applicant that she considered the applicant had not complied with s.101(b) of the Act in that she had provided incorrect information in her application for a protection visa to both the Department and the Tribunal. The s.107 notice noted that s.99 of the Act provides that the duty to fill in or complete his or her application form correctly extends to information given or provided orally or in writing to the Minister, a departmental officer or the Tribunal. The information contained in that notice can be summarised as follows:
·The applicant claimed in her protection visa application that she was seeking protection so that she did not have to return to Malaysia, where her life was in danger because her parents disagreed with her choice of partner. She claimed her parents beat her and her partner and she feared if she returned to Malaysia her father and his friends would beat both of them and never allow them to get married. She claimed her father wouldn’t allow her to seek help from others and she couldn’t move to another part of Malaysia to seek safety because she was grounded all the time. She stated if returned to Malaysia, she and her boyfriend would be tortured physically and mentally until death and the Malaysian authorities would not take any action to protect them because this was not a crime. She claimed she could not move to another part of Malaysia because her father would find them very easily;
·On 15 April 2016 the applicant appeared before the AAT and provided further information about her claims, including that her father objected to her relationship with her boyfriend (by this time her husband) because he was poor, without a proper education and three years her junior which was deemed to be inauspicious according to Chinese tradition. She claimed when she discovered she was pregnant in 2008, her father flew to [Country 1] to force her to terminate that pregnancy. She claimed that in 2009 some men went to her husband’s workplace in Kuala Lumpur and assaulted him, and he was also attacked in 2008 and warned to stay away from her. She claimed that in 2010 she returned to Malaysia for a visit and her father turned up at her husband’s apartment and demanded that the applicant return home with him. He hit the applicant in the face, resulting in her husband trying to restrain him and her father then beating her husband. In 2012 she travelled to Australia and her husband joined her shortly afterwards. She claimed that six months to a year later she called her parents’ home and spoke to her sister, who told her that her father was very angry and stated that if he saw her or her husband in Malaysia he would beat them to death. She claimed her sister stated that her mother supported him on this issue. The applicant claimed at the Tribunal hearing that none of her family were aware that she was married and she feared she would be harshly punished by her father or uncles if she returned Malaysia, because she had done a lot of things that her father considered disgraceful and he no longer considered her to be his daughter. Based on this information the AAT accepted the applicant was owed protection and the applicant was subsequently granted a protection visa by the Department;
·On 14 July 2016 the applicant provided a completed form 80 “Personal particulars for assessment including character assessment” which included details of her parents, identifying her father as [Mr B]. Information before the Department indicated that both of her parents travelled to Australia a few days before the applicant’s wedding [in] September 2015 and photos of the wedding uploaded onto the applicant’s [social media] account [a few days later] included pictures of persons who appeared to be her parents. Several of those [posts] also indicated the applicant [maintained contact] with her father [Mr B] on [social media]. The applicant’s marriage certificate recorded her father [Mr B] was an official witness to her marriage to [Mr A] [in] September 2015 in [Suburb 1], [State 1].
The s.107 notice advised the applicant that the delegate considered she had provided incorrect information to the Department and the Tribunal in relation to her protection visa application. In particular that notice identified the following information as being incorrect:
·The applicant’s response to question 90 of her visa application form, in which she stated that she left Malaysia because her life was in danger as her parents did not agree with her relationship and had beaten her and her husband. The s.107 notice advised the applicant that information appeared to be incorrect as both of her parents attended her wedding, with her father being an official witness to it, indicating that they were aware of and approved of the marriage;
·The applicant’s response to question 91 in which she stated if returned to Malaysia her father would beat her and her husband and would never allow them to marry. The s.107 notice advised the applicant that information appeared to be incorrect as both of her parents travelled to Australia and were present for her wedding [in] September 2015, indicating that they were aware of and approved of the marriage. Furthermore, her father attested to her marriage as a declared witness;
·The applicant’s response to question 95 in which she stated that she and her husband would be tortured physically and mentally until death due to their unknown marriage and union. The s.107 notice advised the applicant that information appeared to be incorrect as both her parents travelled to Australia and were present for her wedding [in] September 2015, indicating that they were aware of and approved of the marriage.
As well, the s.107 notice invited the applicant to comment on:
·Information indicating her parents were in Australia and attended her wedding [in] September 2015 and her father was an official witness on her marriage certificate;
·Information indicating she posted photos of her wedding on [social media], including persons who appeared to be her parents and that she [has] maintained contact with [her father] on social media;
·The applicant’s evidence to the AAT that her parents objected to her relationship with her husband and her father no longer considered her to be his daughter and threatened to kill the applicant and her husband upon return to Malaysia.
The applicant responded to the s.107 notice by way of a statutory declaration dated 19 September 2017. In that statutory declaration, she stated that she has a genuine fear of returning to Malaysia and denied providing false, incorrect or misleading information to the Department or the Tribunal. She stated that if returned to Malaysia, she faced a real risk of significant harm from her father, involving severe physical and mental pain and suffering, intentionally inflicted on her and she would also be subjected to cruel or inhuman treatment and punishment. She maintained her claims for protection were entirely true and correct and provided further information about her family’s attendance at her wedding (in summary):
·Her father was not invited to her wedding, rather she invited her older sister and asked her not to inform her father. Her older sister told her parents about the wedding and her father attended her wedding with the intention to blackmail and extort the applicant;
·Her father threatened that unless she paid him $[amount], he would humiliate her in front of her husband’s family and interrupt and destroy her wedding. He said he had a business debt of $[amount] and needed $[amount] from her, arguing that she must respect him as a father and obey his request;
·She and her husband were shocked at this unexpected situation but wanted to be happy on their wedding day and did not want any disruption or issues to occur and so concluded the only way to save their wedding day was to pay him $[amount] and promise to pay him the rest of the money in 2 months. They also agreed to his request that he be a witness to their wedding because he wanted his name to be on their marriage certificate;
·After the wedding ceremony they gave $[amount] cash to her father and this was the last contact she had with him. A week later she received a call from her sister [Ms C] who told her their father was angry and requesting the remaining $[amount]. The applicant refused and told her sister to tell her father that she would not pay him one dollar more. The next day she received another call from [Ms C] who said that their father was now very angry and had threatened to harm the applicant and her husband if they didn’t pay. She and her husband were stressed and anxious and decided to cease contact with her sister;
·There was a mistake made at the AAT hearing on 15 April 2016 which is that none of their family members are aware she and her husband are married. Her father’s blackmail was not mentioned to the AAT as she was under the impression that no new claims could be added during the review process. They were unrepresented and believed they were only permitted to clarify claims already made at the time of the visa application. She did not raise the issue with the AAT because the AAT hearing took place 7 months after the blackmail incident, which was over by the time of the AAT hearing;
·In relation to the applicant’s communication with her father on [social media], the applicant stated that her father does not know how to use [social media]. His profile was created by her sister [Ms C] who posts all the photos and writes all the comments and this is very common in Chinese culture. The only reason she [maintained contact] with her father on [social media] was because she knew it was actually her sister that was communicating with her.
In a further statutory declaration dated 4 December 2017 and submitted to the Tribunal, the applicant continued to maintain her claims for protection were true and correct and she has a genuine fear of harm from her father if she returns to Malaysia. She provided the following additional information (in summary):
·She has not maintained contact with her family members even via social media and had set up her account so her family members couldn’t initially see her posts on her timeline;
·She had forgotten her sister ever used her father’s account to add her via social media and she thinks her father’s account was not active, as none of her family members ever contacted her after that. Her sister requested she pay the remainder of the money via her [social media] account and she blocked her sister’s account after twice receiving threats;
·The photos she posted of her wedding show her standing next to her parents but obviously [disapproving of] her father and smiling uncomfortably, even crying badly. She cannot provide any evidence of the money paid to her father as she paid him with cash;
·She did not provide information about the events surrounding her wedding to the AAT because her father did not beat them but only blackmailed them and she didn’t realise that information would likely have strengthened her claims for protection. Also she thought the issue had ended.
·She is [number] weeks pregnant after years of infertility and she fears her father may force her have an abortion again as he did in [Country 1]. She gives monthly to the [named charity] fund and other charities and is a volunteer for [specified community event].
For the reasons set out in detail below, I hold very serious concerns about the credibility of the applicant’s claims to fear serious harm from her father if she returns to Malaysia. However I accept some aspects of her evidence about her relationship with her father and his objections to her relationship with her husband.
At the Tribunal hearing on 18 October 2018, the applicant told the Tribunal that her father had been violent towards her during her childhood and teenage years. She stated on one occasion when she was very young she angered him and he pushed her to the ground and smacked her, then went back to eating his meal like nothing had happened. On another occasion he smacked her head against the wall and walked away. He would not allow her to cry after such beatings. She stated it was not just her father who was violent towards her but also her older sister. On one occasion her sister tore up her school assignment. When the applicant reported that to her teacher, her sister was brought to the classroom and beaten by the teacher, causing her sister to beat the applicant’s palm with a ruler. She didn’t tell her family believing she would be treated very harshly. I accept the applicant’s account of these events, however the applicant does not suggest she has an ongoing fear of harm from her sister. Given the effluxion of time and the absence of any ongoing harm by her sister towards the applicant, I do not accept there to be a real chance the applicant will be harmed by her sister if she returns to Malaysia, now or in the reasonably foreseeable future. For the reasons set out in detail below, I do not accept there to be a real chance the applicant will face harm from her father if she returns to Malaysia, now or in the foreseeable future.

The applicant gave evidence that when she was about [age] years old (in year [number] or year [number] at school), she was sexually abused by her mother’s [Relative D] during a sleepover at her parents’ house, and this had also occurred on two previous occasions. The sexual abuse stopped after the sleepover and she didn’t report it to her parents at the time, rather when she and [Relative D] saw each other they just pretended nothing had happened. Before travelling to Australia she told her mother about [Relative D]’s abuse, but thinks her mother either didn’t believe her or didn’t care. She didn’t tell her husband until she had a breakdown after her abortion in 2008. I will not recount the details of that abuse in these reasons, but I consider the applicant’s evidence about these events to be credible and I accept she was sexually abused by her maternal [Relative D] when she was about [age] years old. Her evidence is that abuse did not continue past year [number] or year [number] at school and given her very young age at the time of that abuse, the fact she has disclosed it to her family and the effluxion of time during which she suffered no further harm from her [Relative D] I do not accept there to be a real chance the applicant will face future harm from her [Relative D] if she returns to Malaysia, now or in the foreseeable future.
At hearing the applicant and her husband also provided further information about their relationship, the reaction of the applicant’s father and the events surrounding their wedding. Their evidence about their relationship and the applicant’s father was generally consistent with their prior statements to the Department and the Tribunal. They gave consistent evidence that their relationship had commenced in 2008 while the applicant was living and working in [Country 1] and her husband in Malaysia. They gave evidence that the applicant’s father had objected to that relationship from the moment he became aware of it, while the applicant’s husband’s parents had no difficulty with the relationship. They gave evidence that the applicant’s father had beaten, harmed and threatened the applicant’s husband on a number of occasions as well as forcing the applicant to have an abortion in [Country 1] in 2008 and hitting her on another occasion.
I accept the applicant’s father initially opposed their relationship. At hearing the applicant gave evidence that his reasons for this were that her husband was younger than her and her father believed he hadn’t yet achieved anything, her husband was poor and relatively uneducated compared to the applicant and he worked in a low-level position in the [specified] industry while the applicant was a skilled worker. The applicant was born in the year of the [Zodiac Sign 1] while her husband was born in the year of the [Zodiac Sign 2], which also made them a poor match according to the family’s beliefs. I further accept that when the applicant fell pregnant in 2008, her father flew to [Country 1] and pressured her to have an abortion, driving her to the clinic. In making that assessment I note the relationship was at that time in its early stages and the applicant gave evidence her parents had expected they would arrange her marriage and had begun looking for a suitable husband.
However given my very serious concerns about the truthfulness of the applicant’s claims as to more recent events and my findings below, I do not accept her claims that her father and/ or his associates attacked, harassed and/or beat the applicant or her husband in 2008, 2009 or 2010. For the reasons set out in detail below, I do not accept the applicant’s father continues to oppose their relationship, nor that he would seek to harm the applicant or her husband if they returned to Malaysia.
The applicant’s arrival in Australia and application for a protection visa
The applicant arrived in Australia in November 2012 as the holder of a tourist visa valid for three months. She overstayed that visa by some two and a half years without applying for any other visa. At hearing she told me this was because she didn’t know how far her father would go and she did not know of any other visa she could apply for. She said after she arrived in Australia she asked her husband to join her and he arrived shortly afterwards. They found work in regional [State 2], her husband as a [Occupation 1] and the applicant as a [Occupation 2]. They made applications for protection visas after meeting a Hong Kong backpacker who knew an agent that helped them to apply for the visas.
The applicant lodged her protection visa application on 18 May 2015, four months prior to her wedding [in] September 2015. As set out in the s.107 notice, she claimed in her protection visa application that she was seeking protection so that she did not have to return to Malaysia, where her life was in danger because her parents disagreed with her choice of partner. She claimed her parents beat her and her partner and she feared if she returned to Malaysia her father and his friends would beat both of them and never allow them to get married. She claimed her father wouldn’t allow her to seek help from others and she couldn’t move to another part of Malaysia to seek safety because she was grounded all the time. She stated if returned to Malaysia, she and her boyfriend would be tortured physically and mentally until death and the Malaysian authorities would not take any action to protect them because this was not a crime. She claimed she could not move to another part of Malaysia because her father would find them very easily.
Events surrounding the applicant’s wedding [in] September 2015
As evidenced by the marriage certificate submitted to the Department by the applicant, the applicant married her husband in Australia [in] September 2015 in [Suburb 1], [State 1].
The applicant and her husband have given evidence about their protection claims at two Tribunal hearings:
·A Tribunal hearing conducted before another member on 15 April 2016 in respect of their applications for review of the decisions to refuse them protection visas (the first Tribunal hearing); and
·A Tribunal hearing conducted before me on 18 October 2018 in respect of their applications for review of the decisions to cancel their protection visas (the second Tribunal hearing).
At the first Tribunal hearing the applicant gave evidence that none of her family members had attended her wedding or were aware that she and her husband had married. In her statutory declaration dated 19 September 2017 she described that evidence as a ‘mistake’, acknowledging her family were aware of her marriage and her parents and sister had in fact attended the wedding although her father’s attendance was only for the purpose of blackmailing her and her husband. She stated that she didn’t mention her father’s blackmail at the first Tribunal hearing as she was under the impression that no new claims could be added during the review process. She stated they were unrepresented and believed they were only permitted to clarify claims already made at the time of the visa application. She also stated that the blackmail incident was over by the time of the first Tribunal hearing.
At the second Tribunal hearing, I raised with the applicant and her husband the issue of their credibility and advised them I was having difficulty accepting parts of their evidence. I advised them that I was particularly concerned that they gave incorrect evidence to the first Tribunal that the applicant’s parents did not know about their wedding, as it was now apparent that the applicant’s parents and sisters knew about and attended the wedding. The applicant acknowledged that was the case and said she had misunderstood the first Tribunal’s question because she had tried to communicate in English, believing she had been asked about the situation at the time she lodged her application. Her husband said they hadn’t mentioned it to the first Tribunal because at the time of the hearing they didn’t believe the applicant’s father was still a threat. I do not accept these explanations, noting that an interpreter was present at the first Tribunal hearing and the applicant and her husband did in fact give evidence to the first Tribunal about their wedding in September 2015. I am satisfied that the applicant and her husband knowingly gave incorrect information to the first Tribunal to the effect that the applicant’s family were not aware of and did not attend their marriage in September 2015.
In relation to the events that occurred at the time of her wedding, the applicant and her husband gave consistent evidence at the second Tribunal hearing to the effect that their respective families had never met before the day of the wedding and they had never told her husband’s parents about the problems they were having with the applicant’s father. They said that they had not invited the applicant’s parents to the wedding, but had invited the applicant’s sister. The applicant gave evidence that this was because her husband’s parents were asking questions about why no one from her family was attending the wedding and she wanted blessings from her family. Her sister had told her she was unsure whether she would be able to attend the wedding but had asked for the address anyway.
The applicant and her husband gave consistent evidence the husband’s parents were invited to the wedding and arrived a few days before the wedding, staying together with the applicant and her husband in an apartment [in City 1] before returning to [City 2] for the wedding. In response to direct questions by me, they each gave evidence that the applicant’s parents did not go with them to [City 1] and they did not see the applicant’s parents during their trip to Australia, other than at the wedding itself. They each gave evidence they were not aware the applicant’s parents were in Australia until they arrived unexpectedly on the day of the wedding together with the applicant’s sister and one of her sister’s husband. They gave consistent evidence that her parents had never met her husband’s parents and the husband’s parents had no knowledge of the problems the applicant and her husband had with the applicant’s father.
After hearing this evidence I advised the applicant that material contained on the departmental file indicated the applicant’s sister [Ms E], her parents and her husband’s parents all travelled into and out of Australia on the same flights and stayed in the same block of apartments in [State 3] during their stay. I advised the applicant and her husband that her husband’s parents listed her father as their emergency contact while in Australia which suggested to me that the families were friends and that they were supportive of the relationship and the marriage. I advised the applicant that I considered that information to be inconsistent with her and her husband’s evidence that the applicant’s parents had never met her husband’s parents, that they were not aware the applicant’s father was coming to the wedding and they did not see the applicant’s parents during their visit to Australia except at the wedding itself. The applicant and her husband responded that they didn’t know about this and had nothing to say.
Following the hearing I wrote to the applicant pursuant to the provisions of s.424A, inviting her comment or response to information, including the information above, that I considered would be the reason, or part of the reason why the Tribunal would affirm the decision under review. In response the applicant and her husband provided a number of documents and submissions, including statutory declarations. While the statutory declaration of the applicant’s husband was detailed, the statutory declaration of the applicant merely stated that she had reviewed her husband’s statutory declaration and she repeated and reiterated its contents.
In his statutory declaration dated 7 November 2018 the applicant’s husband maintained that the applicant’s parents were not invited to their wedding but learned about it against their wishes from the applicant’s sister [Ms C], who also arranged for her parents to travel to Australia for their wedding. He stated that they did not know the applicant’s parents and younger sister had travelled to Australia for their wedding until they arrived at the airport to collect the applicant’s husband’s parents.
The applicant’s husband stated that his parents had met the applicant’s parents for the first time in Kuala Lumpur and they had flown to Australia together. They then all travelled to [City 1] where the applicant and her husband stayed in a three-bedroom apartment [in City 1], while the applicant’s family stayed in another apartment in the same building arranged by [Ms C]. The applicant’s husband states that when he stated at the first Tribunal hearing that no one from his wife’s family was there, he meant that they were not staying in the apartment and for the most part they barely saw them during their time in Australia.
I have also considered the contents of the statutory declaration made by the applicant’s husband’s parents [Mr F] and [Ms G] dated 12 November 2018, in which they state they met the applicant’s parents for the first time [in] September 2015 at Kuala Lumpur International Airport after they were contacted by [Ms C] who arranged for them to go to Australia on the same flight as the applicant’s parents as a surprise. They state [Ms C] sent them a photo of her parents so they would recognise them at the airport and they also sent [Ms C] a copy of their itinerary in Australia in case her parents wanted to join them. They state they travelled to Australia with the applicant’s parents and younger sister and put down the applicant’s father as their emergency contact on the passenger card because he could speak better English.
I do not accept these explanations to be true, noting that they provide yet another version of these events that is inconsistent with their prior statements and which has been offered only after adverse information was put to the applicant and her husband. In particular it is inconsistent with the evidence of the applicant and her husband at the second Tribunal hearing before me, at which they both stated the applicant’s parents did not travel to [City 1] with them, that they did not see the applicant’s parents during their time in Australia except at the wedding and that the applicant’s husband’s parents had not met the applicant’s parents before the day of the wedding. It is also inconsistent with their evidence to the first Tribunal, at which they both stated that the applicant’s parents were not aware of and did not attend their wedding in September 2015. I consider the evidence of the applicant, her husband and her husband’s parents in these statutory declarations has been fabricated to try and explain the adverse information put to them in the s.424A letter.
I am satisfied that the applicant’s parents and her husband’s parents were known to each other before the wedding [in] September 2015 and that the applicant and her husband, her parents and her husband’s parents all stayed together in the same apartment building in [State 3] for several days before the wedding. I consider this information indicates that the two families enjoyed a friendly relationship and that the applicant’s parents were supportive of the marriage, given their participation in a joint family holiday with the applicant, her husband and his parents.
My findings above cause me to hold serious concerns about the credibility of the applicant’s claims that her father tried to blackmail her at her wedding a few days later. These concerns are exacerbated by my findings that the applicant and her husband have knowingly given incorrect information at both the first and second Tribunal hearings as well as my other concerns about the events the applicant claims took place at the wedding.
The applicant and her husband’s evidence about the events on the day of the wedding can be summarised as follows:
·when the applicant’s sister and parents arrived, her father made polite conversation with her husband’s parents for a few minutes before asking to speak to them alone in another room. As soon as they were alone he demanded they pay him $[amount], threatening that if they did not pay he would disrupt their wedding. When they told him it was impossible as they did not have that amount of money, he told them that he actually wanted $[amount] and so $[amount] was good enough for them. He told them if they didn’t get him the money, he would destroy their wedding in front of the applicant’s husband’s parents;
·the applicant and her husband told her father they only had $[amount] on them and said they would give him that and then give him the rest later. Her father accepted that but also demanded he be the official witness to their marriage, saying he would not lose his dignity in front of the husband’s parents. Then he left the room and their very simple wedding occurred shortly afterwards. After the wedding was finished, they gave her father $[amount] cash that they had brought to the wedding. The applicant’s parents then left and they did not see them again but the applicant’s sister has since contacted her saying her father is very angry that he has not received the rest of the money.
When I advised the applicant and her husband that I was having difficulty accepting their evidence they were carrying $[amount] cash at their wedding, they said they had brought it because they planned to take the applicant’s husband’s parents out after the wedding and they were not sure how much money they would need. They also said it was not safe to leave the cash at home. When I asked why they did not leave it in the bank, they confirmed they had an Australian bank account but gave evidence they preferred to keep their money in cash. When asked if their bank records showed a cash withdrawal of $[amount], they gave evidence the money had been paid to them in cash and never placed in a bank.
I discussed with the applicant and her husband my concern about their evidence that they allowed the applicant’s father to blackmail them rather than seek the protection of the Australian authorities to prevent that occurring. The applicant stated she had always been very submissive to her father and she didn’t want to cause any problems. Her husband stated that they didn’t want him to destroy their wedding and they just wanted the problem to go away.
I advised them that I was also having difficulty accepting the applicant would have told her sister about the wedding if she genuinely believed her father might harm her as a result. The applicant said she really believed her sister would keep it secret and she had decided to block her sister when she called two weeks after the wedding and asked for the rest of the money. Her husband said that the applicant’s sisters had sold her out, one after the other.
I have carefully considered the evidence of the applicant and her husband as to the events surrounding their wedding, however I do not accept their evidence to be true. While I have accepted the applicant’s father initially objected to her relationship with her husband, I do not accept he maintained his objection to that relationship at the time of the applicant’s wedding [in] September 2015. Rather I have found that the two families enjoyed a friendly relationship and were supportive of the marriage.
I have considered the possibility that the applicant’s statements about her relationship with her father were true at the time she lodged her protection visa application in May 2015 but that circumstances changed prior to her wedding in September 2015. I do not accept this to be the case, noting that the protection visa application was made only four months before their wedding and neither the applicant nor her husband have suggested there was a rapprochement with her father prior to the wedding.

Rather I find that the applicant gave incorrect information in her protection visa application when she stated that:
·She left Malaysia as her life was in danger because her parents disagreed with her choice of partner;
·her parents beat her and her partner and she feared if she returned to Malaysia her father and his friends would beat both of them and never allow them to get married;
·if returned to Malaysia, she and her boyfriend (now husband) would be tortured physically and mentally until death due to their unknown marriage and union.
For these reasons I find the applicant gave incorrect information to the Department in her protection visa application and in doing so, she failed to comply with s.101 in the way described in the s.107 notice.
I am also satisfied the applicant gave incorrect information to the first Tribunal at the hearing on 15 April 2016 when she stated that no one in her family was aware of her marriage to her husband or had attended the wedding. Section 99 provides that any information given or provided by a non-citizen in relation to a visa application, including to the Tribunal on review and whether orally or in writing, is taken to be an answer to a question in a non-citizen’s application form. It follows that by giving incorrect information to the Tribunal on review, the applicant failed to comply with s.101 in the way described in the s.107 notice.
Conclusion on non-compliance
For these reasons, the Tribunal finds that there was non-compliance with s.101(b) by the applicant in the way described in the s.107 notice.
Should the visa be cancelled?
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).
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 (the Regulations).
I have considered the applicant’s response to the s.107 notice, documents provided to the Department and the Tribunal and the applicant’s evidence at hearing. I have also had regard to the prescribed circumstances set out in r.2.41 of the Regulations and to the other matters required to be considered as a matter of government policy as set out below.
The correct information: For the reasons set out in detail above, I consider the correct information is that the applicant’s family members attended her wedding to [Mr A] in September 2015, that they enjoy a friendly relationship with her husband and his family and that both families are supportive of the marriage.
The content of the genuine document (if any): This prescribed circumstance is not relevant in the present case because the s.107 notice relied solely on s.101, not on s.103 (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: As referred to in the delegate’s decision, a copy of which was provided to the Tribunal by the applicant, the decision to grant the applicant a protection visa was based on the determination that she was owed complementary protection on the basis that she feared harm from her father who did not approve of her relationship with her husband. I consider her claim to fear harm from her parents because of her relationship with her husband was central to the decision to grant her a protection visa and that decision was based wholly, or at least in large part, on the incorrect information.
The circumstances in which the non-compliance occurred: The incorrect information was provided by the applicant and her husband in her visa application and at the first Tribunal hearing. They were not represented while making the visa applications or during the first Tribunal review. They obtained representation after the second Tribunal hearing and were represented in their response to the Tribunal’s s.424A letter.
The present circumstances of the visa holder: The applicant lives in Australia with her husband and their child, [Child H], born [date]. [Child H]’s circumstances are discussed further below.
After their visas were cancelled, the applicant and her husband were unable to work between 1 December 2017 and 19 September 2018, when they were granted work rights. The applicant has not returned to work since the birth of her child. The applicant’s husband is currently working as a [Occupation 3] and earns good money in Australia. The applicant claims that in Malaysia such an occupation is considered low skilled with an earning capacity of approximately $[amount] per month and has produced copies of job advertisements to this effect. The applicant and her husband claim that if returned to Malaysia, they will have no accommodation or financial support and will experience significant hardships. I accept the applicant and her husband have the capacity to earn higher salaries in Australia than in Malaysia and that returning to Malaysia will cause them some degree of financial hardship. However as I have not accepted the applicant’s family continues to object to their relationship and marriage, I do not accept they will be without family support. I note the applicant and her husband have previously lived and worked in Malaysia and I do not accept they will be unable to find accommodation, either with family or independently.
The subsequent behaviour of the visa holder concerning his or her obligations under Subdivision C of Division 3 of Part 2 of the Act: The applicant responded to the s.107 notice and engaged with the cancellation process. However for the reasons set out above, I have found that the applicant and her husband gave further incorrect information to the second Tribunal about their contact with her parents during the period they travelled to Australia to attend the wedding.
Any other instances of non-compliance by the visa holder known to the Minister: The delegate’s decision indicates there are no other instances of non-compliance by the applicant known to the Minister.
The time that has elapsed since the non-compliance: The relevant non-compliance took place in May 2015 and April 2016, when the applicant and her husband lodged their applications for a protection visa and appeared before the first Tribunal.
Any breaches of the law since the non-compliance and the seriousness of those breaches: The delegate’s decision states that there is no indication that there have been any breaches of the law since the non-compliance.
Any contribution made by the holder to the community: On the basis of documents submitted to the Tribunal, I accept the applicant volunteered at a [health centre] between May and July 2018, assisting with [specified services]. I accept she also made regular monthly donations to [named charity] between August 2016 and December 2017, prior to the cancellation of her visa. I accept the applicant and her husband also participated in a charity fun run in March 2016.
On the basis of the personal and professional references provided by [the] director of [Company 1], I accept the applicant’s husband is a [Occupation 3] who is highly regarded by his employer and colleagues.
Other factors to be considered
While the above 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 Procedures Advice Manual – PAM3 ‘General visa cancellation powers’, which sets out that it is departmental policy that delegates also consider the following four matters, even if not specifically raised by the visa holder in response to the s.107 notice.
Whether Australia has obligations under relevant international agreements that would or may be breached as a result of the visa cancellation
PAM3 sets out that if there are children in Australia whose interests could be affected by the cancellation, or who would themselves be affected by consequential cancellation, decision makers are obliged to treat as a primary consideration the best interests of the children.
The applicant lives in Australia with her husband and their child, [Child H], born [date]. [Child H] was [diagnosed] with [a medical condition], which requires further [monitoring]. He has also undertaken a [specific health] assessment] which was consistent with normal [condition] and his [condition] will be reviewed at 12 months of age.
It is claimed that he will be unable to experience the same level of medical care in Malaysia, which may result in his condition worsening and that his immunity is acclimatised to Australia and there is a risk of sickness if he is returned to Malaysia. They also claim they will be unable to take items purchased for their son [Child H] back to Malaysia due to the high costs of international shipping.
I accept the applicant and her husband would prefer to raise [Child H] in Australia rather than Malaysia. I note that if the applicant’s visa is cancelled [Child H] will return to Malaysia with his parents, both of whom have family in Malaysia. I have not accepted the applicant’s parents will seek to harm the applicant for any reason relating to her marriage, rather I have found they are supportive of her marriage to her husband. Given my findings above, I do not accept the applicant’s parents would seek to harm [Child H] for any reason relating to the applicant’s marriage to her husband.
I accept the applicant and her husband will incur some financial costs for [Child H]’s baby equipment in their relocation to Malaysia. There is no country information or other evidence before me that would support the claim [Child H] will not receive appropriate medical care if returned to Malaysia. However I give the applicant the benefit of the doubt and accept it is in [Child H]’s best interests that his parents’ visas not be cancelled.
Whether the cancellation would lead to the person’s removal in breach of Australia’s non-refoulement obligations
I have considered whether the visa cancellation would lead to the applicant’s return to a country where she would face persecution, death, torture, cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.
It is not in dispute that the applicant is a Malaysian national and she has produced to the Department copies of her Malaysian passport. The Tribunal finds that the applicant is a citizen of Malaysia and that Malaysia is the ‘receiving country’.
The applicant maintains that her father will seek to harm her if she returns to Malaysia for reasons of her marriage to her husband. Her representative submits that she faces a real risk of significant harm in Malaysia at the hands of her father and this is further complicated by the fact she has a dependent child who may also directly or indirectly experience harm.
For the reasons set out above, I have not accepted the applicant’s claims to fear harm from her father and other family members for reasons of her relationship with her husband. Rather I have found that the applicant’s father and other family members attended the applicant’s wedding in Australia, enjoy a friendly relationship with the family of the applicant’s husband and are supportive of her marriage to her husband. I have not accepted the applicant’s father continues to oppose their relationship, nor that he or any other family member would seek to harm the applicant or her husband or son if they returned to Malaysia.
It follows I do not accept there to be a real chance the applicant will face harm from her father or any other family members if she returns to Malaysia for any reason relating to her relationship with or marriage to her husband. Therefore the applicant does not satisfy the criterion set out in s.36(2)(a).
In MIAC v SZQRB, the Full Federal Court held that the ‘real risk’ test imposes the same standard as the ‘real chance’ test applicable to the assessment of ‘well-founded fear’ in the Refugee Convention definition.[1] For the same reasons I do not accept there to be substantial grounds for believing that there is a real risk the applicant will face significant harm from her father or other family members if returned to Malaysia. Therefore the applicant does not satisfy the criterion set out in s.36(2)(aa).
[1] MIAC v SZQRB [2013] FCAFC 33 (Lander, Besanko, Gordon, Flick and Jagot JJ, 20 March 2013) per Lander and Gordon JJ at [246], Besanko and Jagot JJ at [297], Flick J at [342].
Therefore I do not accept the visa cancellation would lead to the applicant’s removal from Australia in breach of Australia’s non-refoulement obligations under relevant international agreements.
Whether there are mandatory legal consequences to a cancellation decision
I have considered whether there are any mandatory consequences of the visa cancellation. I accept that as a consequence of the cancellation of her visa the applicant will be unable to make a further application for a protection visa and she will become an unlawful non-citizen and liable to be detained and removed from Australia. I consider however that as a Malaysian citizen she will be able to return to Malaysia and I do not accept that indefinite detention is a likely consequence of the cancellation decision.
Whether there are persons in Australia whose visas would, or may, be cancelled under s.140 (consequential cancellations)
The applicant’s husband was found to be owed protection and granted a protection visa on the basis of his own claims. While that visa has also been cancelled in similar circumstances to the applicant, it is not a consequential cancellation for the purposes of s.140 of the Act. The applicant’s son was born after the applicant’s visa was cancelled and he has never been granted a protection visa. While there will be no consequential cancellations under s.140 of the Act, I have accepted that had the applicant’s visa not been cancelled, the applicant’s son would have been entitled to be granted a protection visa as a member of her family unit.
Other relevant matters
The applicant claims that the cancellation of her visa will cause her significant hardship as she and her husband have lived in Australia for six years and formed a life here and they do not have sufficient savings to rent a home in Malaysia. I have accepted the applicant and her husband may suffer some degree of financial hardship if returned to Malaysia, but I note they have worked in Australia and Malaysia and I am satisfied they will be able to find employment and accommodation on return to Malaysia.
CONSIDERATION
The applicant gave incorrect information in her protection visa application and at the first Tribunal hearing in the way set out in the s.107 notice. The decision to grant the applicant a protection visa was based on the incorrect information that she provided.
The applicant has been resident in Australia for just over six years. She has volunteered at a [health centre] for a few months in 2018, participated in a charity fun run in March 2016 and made monthly donations to [a named charity] for a period in 2016 and 2017. I accept she does not wish to return to Malaysia and doing so will cause her some degree of financial and emotional hardship. I have accepted that it is in the best interests of their son [Child H] that his parents’ visas not be cancelled and I treat [Child H]’s best interests as a primary consideration. It does not follow that the Tribunal must find that the visas should not be cancelled, rather the Tribunal may exercise its discretion to cancel the visas if it finds that other considerations outweigh the best interests of the child.[2]
[2] Wan v MIMA [2001] FCA 568.
In the particular circumstances of this case I consider that other considerations outweigh the applicant’s desire to remain in Australia and [Child H]’s best interests. I have found that the applicant’s incorrect information about her relationship with her father was central to the decision to grant her a protection visa and that decision was based wholly, or at least in large part, on the incorrect information she provided. I consider that had the correct information been known she would not have been found to engage Australia’s protection obligations and I consider it is inappropriate that she should benefit as a result of this incorrect information. I have not accepted the visa cancellation would lead to the applicant’s removal from Australia in breach of Australia’s non-refoulement obligations under relevant international agreements, nor have I accepted that indefinite detention is a likely consequence of the cancellation decision. Having given careful consideration to all the relevant circumstances, I have concluded that the applicant’s visa should be cancelled.
CONCLUSIONS
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
The Tribunal affirms the decision to cancel the applicant’s Subclass 866 (Protection) visa.
Alison Murphy
Member

ATTACHMENT A – RELEVANT LAW
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.
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.
If the Tribunal finds that there was non-compliance in the way described in the section 107 notice the Tribunal must proceed to consider whether to exercise the discretion to cancel the visa under subsection 109(1). In exercising this power, the Tribunal must consider the applicant’s response (if any) to the section 107 notice and it must have regard to the prescribed circumstances set out in regulation 2.41 of the Migration Regulations 1994. These are as follows:
·     the correct information;
·     the content of the genuine document (if any);
·     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;
·     the circumstances in which the non-compliance occurred;
·     the present circumstances of the visa holder;
·     the subsequent behaviour of the visa holder concerning his or her obligations under Subdivision C of Division 3 of Part 2 of the Act;
·     any other instances of non-compliance by the visa holder known to the Minister;
·     the time that has elapsed since the non-compliance;
·     any breaches of the law since the non-compliance and the seriousness of those breaches;
·     any contribution made by the holder to the community.
Whilst 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: Minister for Immigration and Citizenship 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 Procedures Advice Manual (‘PAM3: Act – Visa cancellation - General visa cancellation powers - (s109, s116, s128, s134B and s140)’). This policy requires that delegates should also consider matters such as whether there are persons in Australia whose visas would, or may, be automatically cancelled under section 140 of the Migration Act, whether Australia has obligations under relevant international agreements that would or may be breached as a result of the visa cancellation and whether there are mandatory legal consequences to a cancellation decision.
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.

[2019] AATA 157

14 January 2019

Key Legal Topics

Areas of Law

Immigration

Administrative Law

Statutory Interpretation

Legal Concepts

Judicial Review

Procedural Fairness

Statutory Construction

Jurisdiction

Natural Justice

Remedies