1917711 (Migration)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal reviewed a decision by the Department to cancel the applicant's Subclass 155 (Five Year Resident Return) visa. The cancellation was based on the delegate's dissatisfaction with the applicant's identity, pursuant to section 116(1AA) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth). The dispute arose from inconsistencies in the applicant's personal details provided across various visa applications and forms, including his name, date and place of birth, citizenship, and family members.

The Tribunal was required to determine whether the grounds for cancellation of the applicant's visa were established. This involved assessing the applicant's identity in light of the conflicting information provided throughout his migration history, including a previous Protection visa application and an application for Australian citizenship. The Tribunal also considered evidence relating to a prior visa application made in the name of '[Alias 1]', which contained the applicant's photograph.

The Tribunal found that the applicant, who arrived in Australia as an undocumented minor, had provided inconsistent information regarding his identity and background. While initially stating he was born in Afghanistan and a Pakistani citizen, he later claimed to be an Afghan citizen who had resided illegally in Pakistan. The Tribunal noted the applicant's explanation for these discrepancies, attributing them to his youth, traumatic experiences during his journey to Australia, confusion during interviews, and difficulties with interpretation. The applicant also claimed he was unaware of a previous visa application lodged in the name of '[Alias 1]', which he stated was facilitated by a step-uncle, '[Mr B]', and that his photograph was used without his full knowledge. The Tribunal accepted that the applicant may not have been aware of the full implications of the '[Alias 1]' application, particularly given the potential for '[Mr B]' to be implicated in providing false information. Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that the grounds for cancellation were not established and set aside the decision.