1910122 (Refugee)

The applicant sought review of a decision by a delegate of the Minister for Home Affairs to cancel his Subclass 866 (Protection) visa under s.109(1) of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth). The applicant had arrived in Australia in 2010 and was granted a protection visa in 2011. The cancellation decision was based on information that the applicant had provided incorrect information in his protection visa application, specifically by using a false identity and failing to disclose he was known by another name, and by misrepresenting his family composition.

The primary legal issues before the court were to determine the applicant's correct identity and the reasons for the provision of incorrect information in his visa applications. The court was required to assess whether the applicant had complied with his obligations under the Act, particularly concerning the disclosure of accurate information about his identity and personal circumstances.

The court found that while the applicant had provided incorrect information in a 2005 Global Special Humanitarian visa application using a false identity, this was due to exploitation and misinformation by agents in Iran, a country where asylum seekers faced significant rights abuses and a complex, bureaucratic system for retaining refugee status. The court accepted the applicant's explanation that the incorrect details in the 2005 application were based on an "Amayesh card" issued in the assumed identity, and that he lacked English language skills and knowledge of the visa process at that time. However, the court found the applicant's evidence regarding his marital status and the inclusion of three children as dependents in his Subclass 866 protection visa application to be inconsistent and lacking credibility. Specifically, the court noted discrepancies in the applicant's account of his second marriage and the death of his wife, and that the applicant only disclosed these children were not his biological offspring after DNA testing was requested, subsequently withdrawing their applications.

The court set aside the decision under review.