1730528 (Refugee)

This matter concerned an application for review of a decision to cancel a protection visa held by the applicant. The dispute arose from allegations that the visa was granted, wholly or partly, on the basis of incorrect information provided by the applicant and her husband. The court was required to determine whether the applicant had failed to comply with section 101(b) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) by providing incorrect information, and if so, whether the applicant's visa should be cancelled under section 109 of the Act.

The court found that the applicant had provided incorrect information to the first Tribunal hearing on 15 April 2016, specifically stating that no family members were aware of her marriage or had attended the wedding. This was contrary to the correct information that her family members had attended the wedding and enjoyed a friendly relationship with her husband and his family, with both families being supportive of the marriage. The court determined that this incorrect information was central to the original decision to grant the protection visa, which was based on the applicant's fear of harm from her father due to his disapproval of her relationship. Consequently, the court concluded that there was a non-compliance with section 101(b) as described in the notice given to the applicant under section 107.

In exercising its discretion under section 109(1) of the Act, the court considered the applicant's response to the section 107 notice, the prescribed circumstances in regulation 2.41 of the Migration Regulations 1994, and other relevant government policy. While acknowledging that returning to Malaysia would cause some financial hardship and that the applicant and her husband had previously lived and worked there, the court did not accept that they would be without family support or unable to find accommodation. The court affirmed the decision under review, meaning the visa cancellation was upheld.