1913765 (Migration)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal reviewed a decision to cancel the applicant's Subclass 155 (Five Year Resident Return) visa. The applicant, who claimed to be an Afghan national, arrived in Australia in April 2010 and was granted a protection visa under the name [Applicant Name]. Later, during an application for Australian citizenship, departmental integrity checks, including facial image analysis, revealed a discrepancy, matching the applicant's facial images to another identity, [Alias A]. This led to a notification of intention to cancel the applicant's visa on the grounds that the delegate was not satisfied as to his identity.

The core legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the ground for cancellation under section 116(1AA) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) was made out. This section allows for visa cancellation if the Minister is not satisfied as to the applicant's identity. The delegate's concern stemmed from the applicant providing inconsistent information regarding his identity, family composition, and visa history, as well as the submission of an Afghan taskera that was later deemed not genuine by Afghan authorities.

The Tribunal considered evidence that the applicant had previously applied for a visa under the name [Alias A] and had provided incorrect information about his name, date of birth, family, and visa history. However, the applicant maintained his true identity was [Applicant Name] and that [Mr A], whose son was named [Alias A], was a friend of his father who had assisted him. The Tribunal found support for the applicant's claims in the departmental records of an interview for a global special humanitarian visa, where the applicant was assessed as being older than his claimed age, which was more consistent with the age of [Applicant Name] than [Alias A]. Furthermore, a statement from [Mr A] corroborated the applicant's assertion that he was not [Mr A]'s son.

Based on the evidence, the Tribunal was satisfied that the applicant's true identity was [Applicant Name]. Consequently, the ground for cancellation under section 116(1AA) was not established, and the power to cancel the visa did not arise. The Tribunal set aside the decision under review and substituted a decision not to cancel the applicant's Subclass 155 visa.