1800607 (Refugee)

This matter concerned an application for review of a decision not to grant a protection visa. The applicant, who claimed to be Indonesian, presented a passport that the Department's Document Examination Unit determined had been fraudulently altered. Departmental records indicated that another individual with the same name and date of birth had used this passport for multiple visits to Australia. The applicant stated she did not know if her passport was real, having paid a significant sum to a stranger for it and a visa. While the delegate was satisfied the applicant was Indonesian, having flown from Jakarta and speaking the language, they did not accept her stated identity. The delegate ultimately found that the applicant did not meet the criteria for a protection visa on either refugee or complementary protection grounds.

The Tribunal was required to determine whether the applicant had provided a bogus document as evidence of her identity, nationality, or citizenship, and if so, whether she had a reasonable explanation for doing so, which would prevent the grant of a visa under section 91WA of the Migration Act 1958. If this threshold issue was not determinative, the Tribunal also had to consider whether the applicant met the criteria for a protection visa under the refugee provisions or the complementary protection grounds. A further issue involved the effect of a non-disclosure certificate issued under section 438 of the Act, which the Tribunal considered valid but noted that the gist of the information covered had been disclosed to the applicant through departmental communications and the delegate's decision.

The Tribunal reasoned that the applicant had provided a bogus document, as identified by the Department's Document Examination Unit, and that she had not provided a reasonable explanation for its provision. The Tribunal noted that the information covered by the section 438 certificate had been effectively disclosed to the applicant, and the gist of the information regarding the fraudulent passport was put to her under section 424AA. The Tribunal explained that providing a bogus document, without a reasonable explanation, mandated refusal of a protection visa under section 91WA. The Tribunal also considered the movement records of the passport holder, which were inconsistent with the applicant's evidence.

The Tribunal concluded that section 91WA of the Act applied to the applicant, mandating the refusal of a protection visa. Accordingly, the Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa.