Fayeza Batol (Migration)

This matter concerned an appeal by Fayeza Batol against the decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (the Tribunal) to affirm the cancellation of her Subclass 117 (Orphan Relative) (Class AH) visa. The visa had been granted on the basis that Ms Batol was an orphan relative of an Australian citizen brother, Mohammad Ali Hussaini. However, subsequent investigations by the Department of Home Affairs revealed discrepancies between information provided in Ms Batol's visa application and earlier statements made by her brother and mother, Fatima, regarding family composition and the status of her mother. The delegate formed the view that Ms Batol may have provided incorrect answers in her visa application, leading to the cancellation of her visa.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the Tribunal had erred in its assessment of the evidence and whether it had correctly applied the relevant provisions of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth) and associated regulations. Specifically, the court was required to consider the Tribunal's approach to adverse information, including information protected by a section 375A certificate, and whether the Tribunal had adequately addressed the applicant's submissions regarding her age at the time of the visa application and the circumstances under which it was completed. The court also had to determine if the Tribunal had properly considered the evidence presented by Ms Batol, including her witness statement and a statutory declaration from her brother, which sought to explain the alleged inaccuracies in the original application.

The Tribunal's reasoning focused on the inconsistencies identified by the delegate, particularly concerning the assertion that Ms Batol's mother was deceased at the time of the visa application. Ms Batol contended that she was a minor when the application was lodged and that her brother completed it on her behalf, thus any false information was not provided by her. She further stated that her mother was alive and had adopted a false identity. The Tribunal considered its obligations under sections 359A and 359AA of the *Migration Act*, noting these did not apply to adverse information protected by the section 375A certificate. However, it found that the adverse information contained within the delegate's decision record, which was provided to the Tribunal by the applicant, had been addressed with the visa holder. The Tribunal ultimately found that the evidence did not support Ms Batol's claims regarding her mother's status or the circumstances of the visa application, and affirmed the delegate's decision to cancel the visa.