1810992 (Refugee)

This matter concerned an application for review of decisions to cancel the protection visas of the applicants, who were from Iran. The dispute arose from allegations that the applicants had provided incorrect information in their protection visa applications and to the Refugee Review Tribunal (RRT). The applicant mother had claimed to fear harm from her brother-in-law, Mr B, who allegedly insisted she marry him following her husband's death, made it difficult for her to secure housing, caused her to lose her job, and physically assaulted her. She also claimed Mr B and his son were members of the basiji and had connections with Sepah, enabling them to locate her anywhere in Iran. The applicant daughter's claims were also in question. The decision was made by Alison Murphy, a Member of the Tribunal.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicants had failed to comply with the requirements of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth) regarding the provision of correct information in their visa applications and to the RRT, as contemplated by section 109 of the Act. This involved determining whether the notices issued under section 107 of the Act adequately particularised the alleged non-compliance and whether the applicants had indeed provided incorrect information. The Tribunal was required to consider the evidence presented by the applicants in response to these allegations and decide whether the Minister's power to cancel the visas had been validly engaged.

The Tribunal found that the notices issued under section 107 of the Act, which detailed the alleged incorrect information provided by the applicants, complied with the statutory requirements by providing sufficient particulars for the applicants to understand and respond to the allegations. However, upon considering the evidence, the Tribunal was not satisfied that the applicant daughter had provided incorrect information in her protection visa application or to the RRT in the manner alleged in the section 107 notice. Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that there was no non-compliance by the applicant daughter as described in the notice, meaning the discretionary power to cancel her visa did not arise.

The Tribunal set aside the decisions under review and substituted them with decisions not to cancel the applicants' Subclass 866 (Protection) visas.