1732389 (Refugee)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal reviewed a decision to cancel the applicant's Subclass 866 (Protection) visa. The dispute centred on whether the applicant had provided incorrect information in her protection visa application, specifically concerning her fear of returning to Ethiopia due to persecution by the Ethiopian People’s Revolutionary Democratic Front (EPRDF) and its implications for her Oromo ethnic group. The Minister's delegate had formed the view that the applicant had failed to comply with section 101(b) of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth) by providing incorrect answers in her application.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was to determine whether the applicant had indeed provided incorrect answers in her protection visa application, as alleged by the delegate, and consequently, whether the cancellation of her visa was justified. The Tribunal was required to assess the applicant's claims of fear of serious harm if returned to Ethiopia, considering the information provided in her original application and subsequent statutory declaration. The Tribunal also considered whether the applicant's return to Ethiopia in 2015, in alleged breach of visa condition 8559, was relevant to the question of whether she had provided incorrect information in her initial application.

The Tribunal reasoned that the delegate had properly engaged the cancellation power under section 109 of the Act, having issued a compliant notice under section 107. However, the Tribunal found that the applicant's original statements regarding her fear of returning to Ethiopia were coherent and consistent, and that her decision to return to Ethiopia was not far-fetched. The Tribunal concluded that the applicant had not provided incorrect information in her protection visa application, nor had she provided bogus documents. The Tribunal also determined that the applicant's breach of visa condition 8559 was irrelevant to the determination of whether she had provided incorrect information in her visa application.

Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the decision under review and substituted a decision not to cancel the applicant’s Subclass 866 (Protection) visa.