1904063 (Migration)

[2020] AATA 6050

1904063 (Migration) [2020] AATA 6050 (30 November 2020)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

CASE NUMBER:  1904063

MEMBER:Kate Millar

DATE:30 November 2020

PLACE OF DECISION:  Adelaide

DECISION:The Tribunal sets aside the decision under review and substitutes a decision not to cancel the applicant’s Subclass (155) (Five Year Resident Return) visa.

Statement made on 30 November 2020 at 12:10pm

CATCHWORDS
MIGRATION – cancellation – Return (Residence) (Class BB) visa – Subclass 155 (Five Year Resident Return) visa – applicant provided different names for applications – consistent with information on naming conventions in Afghanistan – overall consistent narrative – satisfied as to his identity – decision under review set aside

LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958, ss 116, 359, 438
Migration Regulations 1994, Schedule 2

CASES
Sun v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2016] FCAFC 52
Sullivan v Civil Aviation Safety Authority [2014] FCAFC 93

Any references appearing in square brackets indicate that information has been omitted from this decision pursuant to section 378 of the Migration Act 1958 and replaced with generic information.

STATEMENT OF DECISION AND REASONS

APPLICATION FOR REVIEW

1. Mr [A] came to Australia in May 2012 and claimed to be a national of Afghanistan who required protection.  His claims were accepted, and he was granted a Subclass 866 (Protection) visa on 9 October 2012.

2. Mr [A] has since left Australia on three occasions and was granted a Subclass 155 (Resident Return) visa.

3. Following biometric checks conducted by the Department of Home Affairs, a delegate of the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs found that Mr [A] has previously applied for a Global Humanitarian  visa under a different name on two other occasions, once in [year] as a dependant and again in [year] in his own right.  On both previous occasions his name was given as [Name 1]. 

4. The delegate found there were inconsistencies in information provided in the visa applications about Mr [A]’s family composition, place of birth, relationship with a person in Australia and education. As a result, the delegate found that she was not satisfied as to Mr [A]’s identity, and a ground to cancel his visa under s.116(1AA) of the Migration Act 1958 (the Act) established.  The delegate further found that Mr [A]’s visa should be cancelled.  The issues in the present case are whether a ground to cancel Mr [A]’s visa is made out, and if so, whether the visa should be cancelled.

5. Mr [A] applied for a review of this decision.   

6. Mr [A] appeared before the Tribunal on 20 August 2020 to give evidence and present arguments and was represented by his registered migration agent. The Tribunal also received oral evidence from Mr [B]. The Tribunal hearing was conducted with the assistance of an interpreter in the Hazaragi and English languages.

7. The applicant was represented in relation to the review by his registered migration agent.

8. For the following reasons, the Tribunal has concluded that the decision to cancel the applicant’s visa should be set aside.

   CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE

9. This is an application or review of a decision dated 13 February 2019 made by a delegate of the Minister for Home Affairs to cancel the applicant’s Subclass (155) (Five Year Resident Return) visa under s.116 of the Act.

10. Under s.116 of the Act, the Minister may cancel a visa if he or she is satisfied that certain grounds specified in that provision are made out. These include the ground in s.116(1AA), in which the Minister is not satisfied as to the visa holder’s identity.

11. If satisfied that the ground for cancellation is made out, the decision maker must proceed to consider whether the visa should be cancelled, having regard to all the relevant circumstances, which may include matters of government policy.

    The degree of satisfaction required

12. In looking to the degree of satisfaction required to make such a finding, in Sun v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection,[1] Flick and Rangiah JJ state that as a general proposition, the common law concept of onus of proof has no application to administrative decision-making.  

    [1] [2016] FCAFC

13. However, the Tribunal is mindful of the gravity of the consequences of cancelling a visa and as such establishing a ground to cancel a person’s visa cannot be made lightly or on the basis of inexact proofs.[2]

    [2] Sun v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2016] FCAFC 52 (5 April 2016) per Logan J at [20]

14. In Sullivan v Civil Aviation Safety Authority, Flick and Perry JJ state:

    The more centrally relevant a particular fact may be to the decision reached, the Tribunal it may be accepted would express greater caution in evaluating the factual foundation for the decision to be reached. The absence of any cross-examination on the evidence and the absence of any indication being given to a party that such evidence is under challenge, may well be factors taken into account initially by the Tribunal and thereafter this Court on “appeal.”[3]

    [3] Sullivan v Civil Aviation Safety Authority [2014] FCAFC 93 per Flick and Perry JJ at [119]

15. In looking at whether it has been established that it cannot be satisfied as to Mr [A]’s identity, the Tribunal has kept in mind the gravity of the decision and the central relevance of such a finding and has exercised appropriate caution in evaluating the factual foundation for such a finding.

    Certificate issued under s.438 of the Act

16. The Department file contained a certificate purportedly issued under s.438 of the Act.  This certificate was not signed.

17. This decision, being the cancellation of a Subclass 155 (resident return) visa is reviewable by the Tribunal under Part 5 of the Act.  A certificate issued under s.438 of the Act applies to a decision reviewable under Part 7 of the Act. 

18. As the certificate is not signed and is not issued under the Part under which an application can be made to review this decision, it not valid. 

    Does the ground for cancellation exist?

19. A visa may be cancelled under s.116(1AA) if the Minister is not satisfied as to the visa holder’s identity.

20. In establishing a ground to cancel the visa, it is not for the applicant to show that the ground does not exist, it is for the Minister to establish it does exist.

21. The term “identity” in not defined in the Act or Regulations.  The Oxford English Dictionary defines identity as who or what a person or thing is; a distinct impression of a single person or thing presented to or perceived by others; a set of characteristics or a description that distinguishes a person or thing from others.  The word identity is defined in the Macquarie Dictionary as ‘the state or fact of remaining the same one, as under varying aspects or conditions’.

22. In the April 2018 Lowy Institute paper Comparative international approaches to establishing identity in undocumented asylum seekers,[4] Kristian Hollis states:

    While a contemporary approach to identity in Western democracies involves proof of personal information such as name and date of birth, identity has a much broader meaning in the context of assessing protection claims and can include country of nationality or habitual residence,6 citizenship, ethnic group, language, and religious sub-sect. Every element of an individual’s experience can contribute to their cumulative identity in distinguishing them from others.

    [4] >

    Department policy, contained in the Procedures Advice Manual states a person’s identity is established using the three pillars of identity:  biometrics, documentation and biography.  The policy states that to be satisfied about identity an officer should have regard to consistency of information provided in relation to all three pillars.   

23. Biometrics refers to personal identifiers such as facial image and fingerprints, data matching.  This was how it was identified that Mr [A] had previously applied for a protection visa.  Mr [A] concedes he is the same person as the person who applied for a Global Humanitarian visa in the name [Name 1] as a dependant of his mother [Ms C] in [year] and [year].  The documentation in this case comprises taskiras in two different names, a marriage certificate, a letter from a school and various identity documents issued in Australia in the name [Name 2].  This results in a need for greater emphasis on biography to assist with determining a state of satisfaction about Mr [A]’s identity. 

24. Following the grant of a Subclass 866 (Protection) visa, Mr [A] applied for Australian citizenship in the name [Name 2], and provided various identity documents such as a titre de voyage, letters from [the]  Bank, an Australian driver’s licence and Medicare card and a scanned copy of a marriage certificate issued by the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan Consulate General in Quetta. 

25. The information that led to the delegate finding she was not satisfied as to Mr [A]’s identity was because she found Mr [A] had provided inconsistent and contradictory information regarding his identify (in summary):

    ·     He had lodged two previous visa applications under the name [Name 1].

    ·     In his application for a protection visa he declared he was born in Pakistan and his family left Afghanistan prior to his birth.  In the previous applications he declared he was born in Afghanistan and his family fled to Pakistan in approximately 2001.

    ·     He declared in his protection visa application he had completed primary school up to grade [level], and in the previous visa application stated he had not commenced any education.

    ·     In his protection visa he claimed his parents were alive and living in Quetta, Pakistan.  In his previous visa applications, he declared his father died in 2005 and his mother died in 2010.

    ·     In his protection visa he claimed he had three siblings and in his other visa applications he claimed he had six siblings.  The dates of birth of his siblings have varied across applications.

    ·     Two of the siblings [Mr D] and [Ms E] were declared to be of unknown location in an application, however [Mr D] was a witness at his later marriage.

    ·     In his entry interview he declared he knew [Mr B], but that he was not a close relative.  [Mr B] was the proposer for two previous visa applications and was declared to be his stepbrother.

    ·     He had not provided any identity documents that pre-dated his arrival in Australia. 

26. In response to the notice of intention to cancel his visa, Mr [A] provided a statutory declaration in which he said he was an applicant for the previous Global Special Humanitarian visas, but did not read or sign the applications and was under 16 when the applications were lodged.  He said he did not know the outcome of these applications, and all he did was provide his photographs.  He does not recall relocating from Afghanistan to Pakistan.  He states he went to year [level] at school, but that is not considered an education in Pakistan, which is why he thinks [Mr B] ignored it in the previous visa applications. 

27. Mr [A] has consistently given his year of birth as [year], and the Tribunal accepts he was born at approximately this time.[5]  The visa applications which he was included in were lodged in [year] and [year], he was 16 and 17 years old at the time of these visa applications, and [age] years old when he applied for a protection visa. 

    [5] The DFAT report states at [5.49] that reporting of birth dates is unreliable, and reported dates are likely to be approximate.

    Mr [A]’s name

28. Mr [A] acknowledges that previous applications were made in the name [Name 1].  He explained that [Name 1’s surname] was used as [it] was the name of his grandfather and [A] is the name of his father.  He submits that Afghanis often use the name of their father or grandfather as a surname, with an “i” added on the end.  He submits the [middle name of Name 1] is a variant of [middle name of Name 2]. 

29. This is consistent with information on naming conventions in Afghanistan, as Afghan names traditionally consist of a first name alone.[6] Surnames are not customary in Afghanistan, however in Western countries the person may adopt a surname.[7]  Identity documents in Afghanistan describe a person by their first name, then as the son of and grandson of their father and grandfather. 

    [6]

    [7] Ibid.

30. The submission that he used his father or grandfather’s names as a surname is consistent with the information contained in the record of the entry interview.  This interview was conducted on 5 June 2012, approximately 4 weeks after Mr [A] arrived in Australia.  In this interview, he said he does not know the surname of his father, but his father’s given names are [specified]. 

31. The Tribunal accepts Mr [A]’s explanation of variants to the surname he adopted when he came to Australia.  The Tribunal accepts that [the middle names in Name 1 and Name 2] is a different transcription of an Afghan name into English.[8]

    [8] Ibid where it is stated “The lack of standardised spelling combined with a high level of illiteracy means there are many discrepancies in the transcription of Afghan names into English”.

    Place of birth

32. In his protection visa, Mr [A] claimed he was born in Pakistan, whereas the previous visa applications stated he was born in Afghanistan.  Mr [A] said the family fled Afghanistan was he was young, and he does not recall living in Afghanistan.

33. This is relevant to his nationality as a component of his identity. 

34. In his statutory declaration in response to the notice of intention to cancel his visa, Mr [A] maintains he was born in Daykundi in Afghanistan, but that from childhood he was under the impression he was born in Pakistan. 

35. Pakistan law provides for conferral of citizenship to persons by birth in Pakistan. Under the Pakistan Citizenship Act, 1951 section 4 provides for citizenship for all children born in Pakistan, and provides freedom from discrimination for reasons of race, ethnicity or religion.[9] In practice, however, the government of Pakistan has not conferred citizenship on Afghan refugees or persons of Afghan descent, who were born in Pakistan,[10] despite being the subject of legal challenge in the past.[11]  The United States Library of Congress’ Birthright by Citizenship Around the World report observed that despite the unconditional provision for citizenship by birthright in Pakistan, the claims of children of Afghan refugees born in Pakistan are denied at both administrative and judicial levels.[12] In practice, the operation of Pakistan’s The Foreigners Act, 1946, has enabled the direct displacement of rights to naturalisation and citizenship by birthright, for Afghan refugees and, indirectly, it has enabled the implied exclusion of these rights to their Pakistani-born descendants.[13]

    [9] ‘Pakistan Citizenship Act, 1951’, 18 April 2000, 20190207160648; ‘Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for 2019 - Pakistan’, US Department of State, 11 March 2020, p. 39, 20200312102402

    [10] ‘Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for 2019 - Pakistan’, US Department of State, 11 March 2020, p. 30, 20200312102402

    [11] For example; ‘NADRA submits reply in Hafiz Hamdullah citizenship case’, Pakistan Today, 23 November 2019, 20191127145641

    [12] ‘Birthright Citizenship Around the World’, Law Library of Congress, 01 November 2018, pp. 30, 45, 20190306112250

    [13] ‘Birthright Citizenship Around the World’, Law Library of Congress, 01 November 2018, p. 45, 20190306112250

36. This means that if Mr [A]’s family and parents are from Afghanistan, regardless of where he was born he is a citizen of Afghanistan. 

37. Information from the spouse visa application for Mr [A]’s wife was summonsed from the Department.  This included two statutory declarations from friends.

38. One of these statutory declarations, from [Mr F], states he has known Mr [A] since childhood.  The Australian passport attached states [Mr F] was born in Daykundi, the place where Mr [A] states he was born. 

39. Mr [G] provided the secondary statutory declaration. The Australian passport attached to the statutory declaration shows Mr [G]’s place of birth is [location in] Daykundi in Afghanistan. Mr [G] is named as a witness of the marriage certificate.

40. Mr [A]’s wife, [was] born [in] Daykundi.  Mr [B] has consistently stated he was born in Daykundi and, as discussed below, DNA tests show he is the half sibling of Mr [A].

41. As a result, the Tribunal is satisfied Mr [A] is a citizen of Afghanistan and his family originated in Daykundi as claimed.  It is not satisfied that a lack of certainty about where he was born of itself leads to a lack of satisfaction as to his identity. 

42. It was noted in the decision to grant the protection visa that Mr [A] spoke fluent Hazaragi.  He used a Hazaragi interpreter before the Tribunal.  His identity as a person who is Hazara was not questioned by the delegate, and the Tribunal is satisfied Mr [A] is of Hazara ethnicity. 

    Family composition

43. Mr [A] names his full siblings as [Mr D], [Ms E], [Mr H] and [Ms I].  Mr [A] states his brother [Mr D] was not living with them and left home without telling them anything, so was not declared in his protection application. 

44. [Ms E] is his sister who was married.  He declares that culturally once a girl is married she adopts her husband’s name and lives permanently with her husband which is why he unconsciously did not declare [Ms E] as his sibling. 

45. He said there were mistakes in his siblings’ [names]., [his brother] should have been [Mr H] and [his sister] should have been named as [Ms I].

46. Mr [B] gave independent evidence that Mr [A]’s full siblings are [Mr D], [Ms E], [Ms I] and [Mr H]. He thought there may also be some other sisters. 

47. Mr [B] named Mr [A]’s sister as [Name 3], and Mr [A] gave evidence that he does not have a sister called [Name 3].  This was put to him under s.359AA of the Act. Mr [A] said Mr [B] calls his sister [Name 3] but he calls her [a different name].  The Tribunal is satisfied that the evidence of Mr [A] and Mr [B] is sufficiently consistent to be satisfied as to his family structure.  In circumstances where Mr [A] is unlikely to know specific dates of birth, the Tribunal places little weight on inconsistencies in the dates of birth of his siblings. 

48. In his statutory declaration in response to the notice of intention to cancel his visa, Mr [A] says he did not declare [Mr B] as a close relative as he is not his full brother, and there was tension between them.  Mr [A] says when [Mr B] came to Pakistan he did not treat them as family, and after the death of his mother he did not consider [Mr B] a close relative. 

49. Mr [B] has been described in various ways by Mr [A].  In his entry interview he said he was not a close relative.  In his application for a protection visa he said he was a cousin. In the previous visa applications he was named as a stepbrother. 

50. Mr [A] and Mr [B] independently gave evidence that they have the same father but different mothers.  After the hearing, DNA tests were conducted which show they are half siblings, with the probability of relatedness being 99.8%.  This provides some certainty to Mr [A]’s identity as it is established he is related to Mr [B] in the way stated at hearing.   It also provides another line of consistent information provided about his nationality, ethnicity and family composition as Mr [B] independently named his parents and siblings, albeit with a different name for his sister.

    Parents

51. In this statutory declaration, Mr [A] states his parents passed away and they were cared for by adopted parents.  He called his adoptive parents by his original parents’ names as an embodiment of his original parents, and because he did not want to lose their names because of emotional attachments.  He did not want his children to forget his parents and so said his parents were alive. 

52. In the statutory declaration for his protection visa, he said his father assisted him in obtaining the money for him to flee Pakistan, and he does not say his father returned to Afghanistan or that he was killed.  He provides his father as his contact person. In his entry interview he did not say his father was deceased, and said his father made the arrangements for his travel to Australia.  In the spouse visa application for his wife, he states that his parents went to the house of his wife and talked to her parents. 

1. At hearing, Mr [A] stated his father passed away in 2005 after he returned to Afghanistan to find out about land he owned, and his mother passed away from natural causes in 2009 or 2010.  He says he gave the name [A] on arrival to his adoptive father and [Ms C], his mother’s name, to his adoptive mother.  He could not recall the actual names of his adoptive parents.  Mr [A] was vague as to the details of his mother’s death.  He said she died at home, he wasn’t at home when she died but could not recall where he was, he could only remember that he came home and was told she had died.

2. Mr [A] said he transfers money to his [brother and his wife].  It was put to Mr [A] under s.359AA of the Act that there is a record that AUSTRAC shows transfers of money to [Mr I] [in] Pakistan on 2 January 2015.   He said he could not recall sending money to anyone other than his brother and his wife, but then thought this may refer to his adoptive father. 

3. Mr [B] said he was born in Daykundi, Afghanistan and was living in Pakistan before he came to Australia.  He did not now how old he was when he left Afghanistan, including whether this was as child, a teenager or an adult.  His father is also Mr [A]’s father, however they had different mothers.  Mr [B] said his father passed away a long time ago when Mr [A] was very little and was killed by their enemies.  On being asked the circumstances of his father’s death, he said they heard about it through rumours and understood there was some dispute, but he could not confirm what had happened.  He said his father died in Afghanistan.  He could name Mr [A]’s mother as [Ms C], but did not know how she passed away, or whether this was before or after Mr [A] came to Australia.   

4. The Tribunal did not find Mr [A]’s account of the naming of his adoptive parent convincing.   Mr [A] states that he referred in his application to adoptive parents by the names of his biological parents.  This seems unusual in any culture.  No verification has been sought of a handwritten death certificate of Mr [A]’s mother who purportedly died a matter of months after the first visa application and prior to the second visa application.  At hearing, he said he called his adoptive parents [name] and [name].  Mr [B] said after Mr [A]’s parents died he was cared for by a person he called [name], who has since also passed away.  He did not know the name of either adoptive parents. 

5. The Tribunal is satisfied that Mr [A]’s father is [Mr I] and his mother’s name is [Ms C].  The consistent information on the names of his parents supports his claimed identity. 

   Identity documents

6. At this time of each of the applications, no documentary evidence of Mr [A]’s identity was provided, either in the name [Name 2] or [Name 1]. 

7. Mr [A] has since provided a letter from his school, a taskira and a marriage certificate. 

8. He provided a copy of a letter from [a] Public School, Quetta dated [in] November 2018 stating he was a student of the school, passing grade [level] in 2005.  The Principal is not named but the document is signed by hand with a stamp. Given the amount of time between Mr [A] attending school and this letter, and the lack of the name of the person who signed the document, the Tribunal places little weight on this letter. 

9. Mr [A] provided a taskira and English translation of the taskira issued [in] 2017 from the Ministry of Interior Affairs in Daykundi.  It does not appear that this document has been verified, or that verification has been sought by the delegate.  It refers to his father’s taskira. 

10. Mr [A] said his father had a taskira that Mr [B] held.  He said that when Mr [B] separated from his wife the taskira went missing.  In his statutory declaration he said it was in a suitcase which his brother’s wife threw away.  In oral evidence, Mr [B] said his father “might” have had a taskira, and that he might or might not have seen his father’s taskira.  He then said he never had his father’s taskira or doesn’t remember what he had.  Mr [B] himself has a taskira, which he obtained last year. 

11. It was put to Mr [A] under s.359AA of the Act that Mr [B] had given evidence that he had not seen his father’s taskira.  He said he did not know why Mr [B] said he did not have the taskira, and that Mr [B] had told him that he had the taskira and that his wife would not give it back to him. 

12. The marriage certificate provided lists as a witness [Mr D], who in turn lists his father’s name as [Mr I] [and] his grandfather’s [name], and that he was born in Daykundi.  The marriage certificate states Mr [A] was born in Quetta, Pakistan.  The document is issued by the Consulate General in Quetta.

13. The DFAT Country Information report states:

    Document fraud is a major issue in Afghanistan. Because the process for obtaining some documents is decentralised to the provincial level, and because the documentation itself generally does not contain robust security features, the system is vulnerable to fraud. Genuine documents can be issued based on false information, with supporting forms of documentation such as school, academic, or banking records easily forged. This is particularly problematic in the case of taskiras, given they are the primary document used to obtain other forms of identification. The issuance of the new e-taskira should help in mitigating this risk (see National Identity Cards (Taskira/ Tazkira), but there is likely to be a significant time lag between the introduction of the new taskira and its widespread implementation.[14]

    [14] Ibid at [5.54]

14. In light of this information, and the equivocal evidence about the father’s taskira, the Tribunal is not satisfied it can rely on the taskira to establish Mr [A]’s identity.  In so finding, it is also cognisant that an inability to provide a reliable identity document, in circumstances where it is difficult to obtain a genuine document, does not necessarily mean the information contained in the document is untrue.

    FINDINGS AND CONCLUION

15. The delegate relied on differences between the visa applications to find that she was not satisfied as to Mr [A]’s identity.  These differences were his name, his place of birth, his family composition, whether his parents were living or deceased and his education.

16. In cases such as this, facts cannot be found with a high level of certainty. The Tribunal must do its best with the information before it, particularly when the person comes to Australia from a country where there is limited documentation available,[15] and the documentation that is available does not have the security features common to documents in Australia.

    [15] For example, the DFAT report states authorities did not historically issue birth certificates, and these remain far from common [at 5.49], and that in practice the vast majority of marriages are not validly registered [at 5.51] 

17. On the information before it, the Tribunal is satisfied that:

    ·The applicant’s name is [Name 2].

    ·He uses the surname [A] as this is derived from his father’s name.

    ·Other visa applications have been made in which his surname is [Surname of Name 1], which is derived from his grandfather’s name.

    ·He was born in [year].

    ·He is ethnic Hazara and a citizen of Afghanistan.

    ·His family came from Daykundi province in Afghanistan.

    ·He has a stepbrother, [Mr B].

    ·His parents are [Mr I] and [Ms C].

    ·He has been known as [A] since arriving in Australia.

    ·His biological full siblings include [Mr D], [Ms E], [Ms I]

18. In the view of the Tribunal this is sufficient to support his claimed identity.  The Tribunal does not consider it is possible to definitively confirm his identity, and this is consistent with country information about the difficulty in obtaining identity documents. 

19. The totality of the information before the Tribunal builds a consistent picture of a person who is the age stated in the visa applications, who is of Hazara ethnicity and Afghan nationality.  The names of his parents are consistent, as are the names of many siblings.  The DNA tests establish he is the half brother of [Mr B] as claimed.

20. The assessment of Mr [A]’s identity became complex, and confidence in his stated identity was reduced, due to his failure to disclose previous visa applications, and the name by which he was known in these visa applications.  His explanation for the names he used, in his father and grandfather’s names is consistent with identity documents that can be obtained in Afghanistan, where a person is identified by reference to their father and grandfather.    

21. Assessment of his identity has also been obscured by some less than convincing or confusing parts of his narrative, such as the death of his parents. The core of Mr [A]’s family composition has remained consistent across visa applications, however different family members have been named at different times, the whereabouts of his elder brother has changed with little explanation, and the name of one of his [sisters] has varied.  The place of Mr [A]’s birth has also varied, with both Quetta and Daykundi province being stated as his place of birth. 

22. Given the consistent information about his family members originating form Daykundi in Afghanistan, the Tribunal is not satisfied this inconsistency leads to it not being satisfied of his nationality. 

23. In the context where Mr [A] came to Australia as a refugee, and the Tribunal accepts the naming conventions that applied and the overall consistent narrative, the Tribunal is satisfied as to his identity. 

24. As a result, it is not satisfied that a ground to cancel his visa under s.116(1AA) of the Act exists. It follows that the power to cancel the applicant’s visa does not arise.

    DECISION

25. The Tribunal sets aside the decision under review and substitutes a decision not to cancel the applicant’s Subclass (155) (Five Year Resident Return) visa.

    Kate Millar
    Senior Member

    
    
    

Sources consulted during the research for this question include the CISNET database, Refworld, Google search engine, the European Country of Origin Information Network, International Human Rights and Humanitarian websites, and local news sources, including The National, The Express Tribune, Dawn, and Tolo News