2101739 (Refugee)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal reviewed a decision to cancel the protection visa of an applicant who claimed to be a stateless Faili Kurd from Iran. The applicant arrived in Australia in 2010 and was granted a protection visa based on her claimed identity and stateless status. Concerns about her identity arose during an Australian citizenship application process, leading to multiple notices of intention to consider cancellation of her protection visa.

The Tribunal was required to determine whether the applicant's claimed identity was sufficiently established, particularly in light of inconsistencies and a lack of supporting documentation. Key issues included the plausibility of her claims regarding statelessness, the registration of her daughters' births in Iran, her daughter's marriage to an Iranian national and subsequent return to Iran, and the applicant's ability to access medical treatment in Iran as an undocumented person. The Tribunal also considered the applicant's failure to provide requested identity documents.

The Tribunal reasoned that while certain aspects, such as the daughter's marriage and return to Iran, and the applicant's initial failure to provide documents, raised questions, they did not, in isolation or combination, create significant concerns about the applicant's claimed identity to the requisite legal standard. The Tribunal accepted evidence that obtaining Iranian identity documents and accessing services like medical treatment could be achieved through bribery and private payments, consistent with widespread corruption in Iran. Furthermore, the Tribunal gave weight to the fact that the applicant's identity had been accepted when she was granted her protection visa in 2010 and that she had used Australian travel documents to re-enter Iran without issue.

Consequently, the Tribunal was satisfied that the applicant's identity was as claimed and that she was stateless. The Tribunal concluded that the grounds for cancellation under section 116(1AA) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) did not arise. The decision under review was set aside, and a substituted decision was made not to cancel the applicant's Subclass 866 (Protection) visa.