1811201 (Refugee)

The applicant sought review of a decision by the Department to cancel his Protection visa. The Department's delegate had cancelled the visa on the basis that the applicant had not complied with section 101 of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth), which requires a non-citizen to provide truthful and complete answers in their visa application. The applicant had been granted a Protection visa in 2014, but a Notice of Intention to Consider Cancellation was issued in 2017, alleging that the applicant had provided incorrect information in his Protection visa application form.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicant's Protection visa was granted wholly or partly on the basis of incorrect information or a bogus document, and whether the delegate's decision to cancel the visa was correct. This involved determining whether the applicant had deliberately provided false information regarding his identity, previous travel, and criminal history in his application for a Protection visa. The Tribunal also considered the circumstances in which any non-compliance occurred and whether there were any mitigating factors.

The Tribunal found that the applicant had indeed provided incorrect information in his Protection visa application. This included using a false name, failing to disclose previous travel and residency, and omitting details of significant criminal convictions in [Country 3]. The Tribunal noted that the applicant admitted to providing this false information to avoid his criminal record being discovered and to enhance his chances of obtaining a Protection visa, fearing he would be killed if returned to Iraq. Despite the applicant's claims that he was advised to lie by lawyers and that he feared for his life, the Tribunal found no particular urgency or confusion that excused his deliberate deception. The Tribunal concluded that the applicant's understandable concerns about his safety did not justify withholding crucial information and fabricating claims under a false identity, as this prevented Australia from properly assessing his protection claims.

The Tribunal affirmed the delegate's decision to cancel the applicant's Protection visa. The Tribunal found that the visa was granted based on incorrect information provided by the applicant, and that the applicant had made concerted efforts to deceive the Department. The Tribunal considered that the circumstances weighed in favour of exercising the discretion to cancel the visa.