1907872 (Refugee)

The applicant, referred to as [Alias A], sought review of a decision by a delegate of the Minister for Immigration to cancel their Subclass 866 (Protection) visa. The cancellation was based on alleged non-compliance with section 101(b) of the *Migration Act 1958* (the Act), which requires a non-citizen to provide no incorrect answers in their visa application form. The delegate issued a notice under section 107 of the Act, detailing the particulars of the alleged non-compliance, and subsequently cancelled the visa.

The primary legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the applicant had indeed failed to comply with section 101(b) of the Act in the manner particularised in the section 107 notice, and if so, whether the visa should be cancelled. The notice specified three grounds for non-compliance: incorrectly answering "No" to having previously made another type of application to the Department, failing to disclose being known as [Alias A] ([DOB 2]) when asked about other names, and providing an incorrect date of birth ([DOB 1]) instead of the correct one ([DOB 2]).

The Tribunal considered the evidence and found that the section 107 notice issued to the applicant complied with statutory requirements. The delegate had a sufficient basis to engage section 107, having information that the applicant was also known as [Alias A] and had previously applied for a visa. The Tribunal examined each ground of non-compliance. It noted that departmental records indicated [Alias A] ([DOB 2]) had lodged a Partner visa application in 2010 which was refused. Therefore, the applicant should have answered "Yes" to the question about previous applications. Furthermore, the applicant had not disclosed being known as [Alias A] ([DOB 2]) when asked about other names, and had provided an incorrect date of birth. The Tribunal concluded that these actions constituted non-compliance with section 101(b) of the Act.