1814425 (Refugee)

The applicant, who had been granted a Protection visa, sought review of a decision by a delegate of the Minister to cancel that visa. The cancellation was based on the delegate's assessment that the applicant had provided incorrect answers in his protection visa application form, thereby failing to comply with section 101(b) of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth). The applicant claimed to fear persecution in Iran due to his imputed religion and attendance at a house church, and that the Iranian authorities, specifically the Basij, would be interested in him.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicant had indeed provided incorrect answers in his visa application, and if so, whether this non-compliance warranted the cancellation of his visa. This required the Tribunal to consider the applicant's original claims for protection, the information he provided upon re-entering Australia, and his subsequent explanations for his actions and any perceived discrepancies. The Tribunal also had to determine if the applicant's voluntary return to Iran for an extended period contradicted his stated fears of persecution.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's return to Iran was motivated by family reasons, including his mother's illness and the death of his uncle, and his desire to see his son. While detained at the airport upon arrival and interrogated, the applicant stated he deliberately concealed his lack of religious belief and fear of persecution to avoid adverse consequences. He explained that his Iranian passport and Australian travel document were retained, and he was required to provide property documents for his release, with an obligation to report to the police, which he did not do. The Tribunal accepted that the applicant's actions, including his return to Iran and subsequent detention and interrogation, were undertaken in a state of distress and fear, and that he did not intentionally provide incorrect answers in his original application. The Tribunal concluded that the applicant's subjective fears at the time of his original application were genuine, and his subsequent conduct did not demonstrate a lack of those fears or an intention to mislead.

Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the delegate's decision to cancel the applicant's Protection visa and substituted a decision not to cancel the visa.