1837029 (Refugee)

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Department of Home Affairs to cancel his Protection (subclass 866) visa. The dispute arose from the Department's finding that the applicant had failed to provide correct information regarding his identity and protection claims in his visa application, thereby contravening sections 101(a) and 101(b) of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth). The applicant had initially been granted a protection visa based on claims of being an Afghan Hazara fleeing persecution in Afghanistan. However, subsequent investigations, including an identity assessment and the verification of a Pakistani Computerised National Identity Card (CNIC), led the Department to conclude that the applicant was in fact a Pakistani citizen named [the applicant's name], born in [DOB 1].

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the applicant had failed to comply with his obligations under the *Migration Act* by providing incorrect information or bogus documents in his protection visa application. Specifically, the court had to determine if the applicant's claims of being an Afghan national facing persecution were false, and if the evidence, particularly the Pakistani CNIC, sufficiently established his true identity and citizenship. The court also considered the applicant's stated motivation for providing false information, which he claimed was to protect his brother, and whether this circumstance was outside his control.

The court found that the evidence, including the applicant's Pakistani CNIC, strongly indicated that he was a Pakistani citizen and had been at the time of his protection visa application. This contradicted his claims of being an Afghan national fleeing persecution in Afghanistan. The court noted that the provision of non-genuine Afghan identity documents, such as taskeras and a marriage certificate, further suggested that his family were not Afghan citizens. The court also considered the applicant's explanation for providing false information, finding that his primary motivation was likely to gain a positive migration outcome for himself, rather than to protect his brother, who was already an Australian citizen. The court concluded that the circumstances described by the applicant were not outside his control and that the decision to grant the visa was based, at least partly, on incorrect information and bogus documents.

Consequently, the court affirmed the Department's decision to cancel the applicant's Protection visa under section 109 of the *Migration Act*. The court was not satisfied that there were any compelling reasons why the visa should not be cancelled, given the findings of non-compliance.