1920899 (Migration)

The applicant, a holder of a Subclass 155 (Five Year Resident Return) visa, sought judicial review of the Minister's decision to cancel that visa. The cancellation was based on information provided in a previous protection visa application, which the Minister determined was incorrect. The applicant's mother had applied for a protection visa on behalf of herself, the applicant, and his siblings without the applicant's knowledge, and the information provided in that application was found to be inaccurate. In contrast, the information provided by the applicant in his own subsequent application was found to be correct.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the Minister had erred in cancelling the applicant's visa, considering the circumstances surrounding the incorrect information provided in the earlier protection visa application and the correct information provided by the applicant himself. The court was required to assess whether the Minister had properly considered all relevant factors, including those that weighed in favour of and against cancellation, in accordance with the Migration Act 1958 (Cth).

The court found that the Minister's decision to cancel the visa was flawed. While acknowledging that the applicant's mother had provided incorrect information in a prior application, the court noted that the applicant himself had provided correct information in his own application. The court also considered factors such as the applicant's ethnicity and his employment with a foreign military in another country, which raised concerns about a risk of harm if he were returned. The court concluded that these factors, when weighed against the circumstances of the incorrect information, did not justify the cancellation of the visa.

The decision under review was set aside.