GDS18 v Minister for Home Affairs

This matter came before Judge Baird of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia concerning the cancellation of the Applicant's visa under section 109 of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth). The Applicant's visa was cancelled on the basis that he had provided incorrect information in his application and had not complied with section 101(b) of the Act. The cancellation followed a determination by a delegate that the Applicant had not complied with the Act, specifically in relation to his claims of fear of harm from militia groups in Iraq, which had been material to the grant of his protection visa.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the delegate had erred in cancelling the Applicant's visa under section 109 of the Act. This required the court to consider whether the Applicant had, in fact, provided incorrect information in his visa application and whether he had failed to comply with the Act, particularly in light of his subsequent travel to Iraq on multiple occasions for significant periods. The Applicant's claims of fear of harm and inability to depart Iraq were critical to his initial grant of protection.

The court reasoned that the Applicant's repeated travel to Iraq, for periods ranging from six to ten months, directly contradicted his stated fear of harm from militia groups and his assertion that he could not obtain a passport or depart the country. The evidence indicated that the Applicant had obtained a passport and had travelled to Iraq on four separate occasions between August 2012 and July 2017. This pattern of travel suggested that the information provided by the Applicant in his application, which was material to the assessment of Australia's protection obligations, was incorrect. Consequently, the delegate was entitled to conclude that the Applicant had not complied with the Act and that his visa was liable for cancellation under section 109. The court found no error in the delegate's decision.