1908754 (Refugee)

This matter concerns protection visa claims made by three applicants from Iran. The applicants, a husband, wife, and their son, alleged they faced persecution due to their involvement in anti-regime protests in Iran and their son's participation in the 2009 Green Movement protests. The husband also claimed he left Iran illegally and feared execution upon return. The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (Tribunal) was required to determine the validity and scope of the review applications before it, given a complex procedural history involving multiple visa applications and court decisions.

The primary legal issues before the Tribunal were: first, whether all three applicants were properly included in the review application for matter 1908754, despite only the first applicant being named on the form; and second, the validity of a subsequent protection visa application in matter 2111381, in light of the Federal Court's decision in *MICMSMA v CBW20*. This latter issue hinged on whether the first visa application was valid, which would render the second invalid, or vice versa, thereby determining which application the Tribunal could assess on its merits.

The Tribunal considered submissions regarding the applicants' representative's administrative error in omitting two applicants from an earlier review application, arguing there was no intention to exclude them. It also examined whether the Minister's intervention under s 91L and subsequent invitation to lodge a new visa application affected the validity of prior review applications, particularly in light of the *CBW20* decision. The Tribunal noted that if the first visa application was invalid, it could only set aside and substitute that decision as invalid, and would then assess the protection claims against the first visa application. The Tribunal ultimately set aside and substituted a decision that a Temporary Protection visa made on 12 October 2020 was invalid.