2205946 (Migration)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal considered the cancellation of a Return (Residence) (Class BB) visa, Subclass 155, held by the applicant. The dispute arose because the delegate of the Minister was not satisfied as to the applicant's identity, which is a ground for visa cancellation under section 116(1AA) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth). The applicant had initially been granted a protection visa based on his stated identity, but subsequent information raised doubts about this identity, including discrepancies in his name, date of birth, family composition, citizenship, and place of residence.

The Tribunal was required to determine whether the delegate was satisfied that the applicant's identity was not as stated in his protection visa application, and if so, whether the visa should be cancelled. This involved assessing conflicting information regarding the applicant's personal details, family relationships, and migration history, as well as considering the reliability of various documents and evidence presented. The delegate had identified numerous inconsistencies, including facial recognition matches to other individuals, differing family details across various visa applications, and discrepancies in stated places and dates of residence.

The Tribunal reasoned that while there were significant discrepancies in the information provided, including the use of a false identity to obtain the initial visa, the applicant's true identity had since been confirmed. The Tribunal noted that Afghan authorities historically did not issue birth certificates, and reported birth dates were often approximate. It found that the applicant was indeed an Afghan national and did not have a right to reside in any other country. The Tribunal also considered departmental guidelines which indicate that a cancellation ground under s 116(1AA) is not applicable if a false identity was used to obtain a visa, but the true identity is later confirmed.

Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the decision to cancel the applicant's visa. The Tribunal concluded that the applicant's true identity had been established, despite the initial use of a false identity, and that the circumstances did not warrant the cancellation of his visa.