1918722 (Refugee)

This matter concerned an appeal by an applicant against the cancellation of his Safe Haven Enterprise Visa (SHEV). The applicant had initially arrived in Australia in November 2012, claiming to be a Pakistani citizen named [Name 1] with a specific date of birth. He was granted a SHEV in March 2017. However, the Department of Home Affairs later issued a Notice of Intention to Consider Cancellation (NOICC) alleging the applicant had provided incorrect information regarding his name, date of birth, nationality, family composition, and visa history. This was based on a facial image comparison report linking his arrival image to an earlier application for a Global Special Humanitarian visa lodged in 2009 under the name [applicant name], where he was listed as an Afghan citizen.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicant had provided incorrect information in his SHEV application, thereby constituting a ground for cancellation under the relevant provisions of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth). This involved determining the applicant's true identity and nationality, and whether his initial claims were false. The Tribunal also considered the validity of a public interest immunity certificate issued by the Department, which restricted the disclosure of certain information.

The Tribunal found that the applicant had indeed provided incorrect information in his SHEV application. In response to the NOICC, the applicant conceded that he was not [Name 1], a Pakistani citizen, but rather [applicant name], an Afghan national of Hazara ethnicity and Shi’a religion. He stated that his previous claims were false and that he is a citizen of Afghanistan, born around [DOB 2]. The Tribunal was satisfied that the facial image comparison report provided strong evidence of the applicant's identity across the two applications. Furthermore, the Tribunal was satisfied that the public interest immunity certificate was valid and that the adverse information relied upon by the Department had been disclosed to the applicant in the NOICC.

The Tribunal set aside the decision under review.