The Tribunal gives this substantial weight in favour of cancelling the visa.

Was the decision to grant the visa or immigration clear the visa holder based wholly or partly on incorrect information or bogus documents.

1. The Department was not satisfied that the visa holder met regulations 117.21 and 117.22 of the Regulations and the definition of an orphan relative. The application for an Orphan Relative visa was refused on 13 November 2018. The decision was appealed with the AAT. The decision to refuse the visa was set aside by the AAT on 23 April 2021. The departmental delegate granting the visa on 9 February 2022.
2. The Marriage Certificate dated 28 June 2023 showed the applicant married his wife with his father present as the witness. This was also corroborated during the hearing. This clearly indicates false information and bogus documentation being knowingly given at the application stage, and at the AAT review dated 23 April 2021.
3. The applicant was not an orphan and would therefore not have satisfied the requirements of a 117 Orphan Relative visa grant.

The Tribunal gives this substantial weight in favour of cancelling the visa.

Circumstances in which the non-compliance occurred

1. The multiple instances of non-compliance occurred when the visa holder provided incorrect or false information and bogus documents as forementioned. The visa holder did not respond to the NOICC and provide information relating to the circumstances in which the non-compliance occurred, prior to the delegate's decision.
2. It is now evident from the applicant's testimony and the established falsity of the information and documents that the deception was the result of deliberate actions on the part of himself and his sponsor. If it is accepted, as he states, he may not initially have been aware of the deceptions undertaken by his aunt no attempt was made to correct the false information by the applicant even after the AAT hearing in 2021 where it was made clear there were concerns about false information and bogus documents. He was aware of the false statement made by himself to the Tribunal that his parents were dead. The Tribunal has established the applicant was an adult at the time of these deceptions and doesn't share the view expressed by the delegate he was a teenager at the time of application which was based upon a false Birth Certificate and that this might in some part explain the attempts to deceive the Department. For clarity it is noted he was an adult at the time he deliberately deceived the AAT in the previous hearing.
3. The Tribunal has formed a view he participated in multiple deceptive acts including the provision of false information, bogus documentation and decided to not correct the false information at any stage.
4. Honesty in the visa application process and system is a key pillar in keeping Australia safe and ensuring our migration program is fit for purpose. It is also a way of ensuring people applying to migrate to Australia are treated as fairly as possible within the legislation and regulations. This obligation is sacrosanct and any deliberate attempt to circumvent the policies and laws established by the Australian Government is viewed very negatively by this Tribunal.

The Tribunal gives this substantial weight in favour of cancelling the visa.

1. The Tribunal accepts as fact that the applicant is a citizen of the Democratic Republic of Congo and was raised there. He has spent some of his early adult life in a refugee camp in Uganda with his family.
2. The visa holder has been in Australia for 3 years which is a relatively short time. He left Australia and married his wife who does not live in Australia.
3. He has stated he has 5 children not in Australia.
4. He stated during the hearing he usually returns to Uganda every year around August but is unable to do so on his current Bridging Visa.
5. The Tribunal accepts there may be some hardship associated with his being out of immediate contact with his siblings in Australia. It notes from his statements he appears to be somewhat distant from them currently but there is no way of knowing how that might change in the future.
6. It is further acknowledged that being separated from family including his aunt and siblings may potentially cause some financial, psychological and emotional hardship although this is difficult to judge because of the claims of ill treatment by his aunt and her family members and the subsequent claims made to the Red Cross and Anti-Slavery Australia.
7. It is accepted the removal from Australia would not be by choice and as a consequence may be expected to cause some hardship. It is also acknowledged his earning capacity is unlikely to be as substantial as it could be in Australia.
8. It is acknowledged his parents live overseas so not a relevant consideration in this circumstance.
9. The Tribunal is satisfied he is contributing to Australia as a wage-earning employee on an agricultural enterprise in South Australia.
10. The Tribunal gives this moderate weight in favour of not cancelling the visa.

Behaviour of the visa holder concerning their obligations under Subdivision C of Division 3 of Part 2 of the Migration Act 1958

1. There is no evidence before the Tribunal to indicate the applicant attempted to correct the information contained in the visa application at the earliest possible time once he became aware it was false. In fact, it was a number of years post the point where he was made aware of it during the AAT hearing in 2021 when he lied in his submission by stating his parents were dead, when he knew it was not true. He clearly was aware of the false birth date in the application in mid-2022 when the Thebarton College informed him of the date they had been provided. He chose to not correct the record with the Department. By his own admission and actions, it appears he made a decision to not correct it following a conversation with his parents and aunt. The visa holder has not complied with section 105 of the Act which states in part the following.

'If a non citizen becomes aware that an answer given or provided in his or her application form was incorrect [....]

when it was given or provided, he or she must, as soon as practicable, notify an officer in writing of the incorrectness and of the correct answer.'

The Tribunal gives this substantial weight in favour of cancelling the visa.

Other instances of non-compliance by the visa holder

1. There is no information before the Tribunal to indicate any other instances of non-compliance other than those discussed in the forementioned paragraphs.
2. The Tribunal gives this neutral weight in favour of not cancelling the visa.

1. The application has lodged in December 2016. Over 9 years have elapsed since the incorrect and false information and bogus documents were given to the Department. The Tribunal has no credible evidence to indicate there has been an attempt to correct the falsehoods with the Department until many years later even though as a result of the AAT hearing concluded in 2021, he was made aware of the deceptions because he provided a false written statement to the Tribunal stating his parents were dead when he knew it was a lie. Evidence in the form of a Statutory Declaration dated 13 May 2025 and an application for a [different] visa dated 17 January 2025 correct the false data provided in the application made in 2016.
2. The Tribunal gives this substantial weight in favour of cancelling the visa.

Breaches of the law since the non-compliance and the seriousness of those breaches

1. There is no evidence before the Tribunal indicating breaches of the laws of Australia since the non-compliances.
2. The Tribunal gives this neutral weight in favour of not cancelling the visa.

Persons in Australia whose visas would, or may, be cancelled consequentially (s140).

1. Relevantly Section 140 of the Act does not stipulate that under these circumstances any other person's visa would or could be cancelled as a direct consequence of the cancellation of the applicant's visa.
2. The Tribunal gives this neutral weight in favour of cancelling the visa.

Any contribution made by the visa holder to the community

1. The Tribunal is unaware of any evidence the visa holder has made any significant community contributions in the relatively short time he has been in Australia. He is working as an agricultural labourer which is viewed favourably by the Tribunal.
2. The Tribunal gives this modest weight in favour of not cancelling the visa.

1. The Tribunal notes the Departmental policy guidelines require delegates to assess if Australia would be in breach of its international obligations if the visa was cancelled.
2. These include the following.
   • Non-refoulement pursuant to the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees (the Refugee Convention) and 1967 Protocol (the Protocol), the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CAT),
   • International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCP)
   • Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC).

1. The applicant is a citizen of the Democratic Republic of Congo and was residing in a refugee camp in Uganda prior to coming to Australia. It is noted by his own admission he has a wife and 5 children, (2 from a previous relationship) and his 2 parents, all of whom are residing outside of Australia in Uganda. He has 6 siblings living in Australia as well as his aunt sponsor and cousins. He has 6 siblings living in Uganda.
2. He has returned to Uganda on 2 occasions since arriving in Australia and he married his wife on 1 of those trips. It is self-evident he has in the past chosen to leave Australia and return to Uganda. Returning to the Democratic Republic of Congo, (DRC) is possible but the Tribunal accepts the extremely unstable political circumstances and hostilities associated with the warring factions would potentially place him at risk. The Tribunal accepts returning to Uganda has risks associated with it as he is not a citizen, and it is possible he would be deported to the DRC. This is far more likely to be scrutinised by the Ugandan authorities if he is returned there from Australia permanently compared to his earlier brief stays. This, the Tribunal believes would enliven a reasonable prospect of harm up to an including forced military conscription torture and death. It agrees with the submission made on his behalf that his medical training and education could feasibly place him at greater risk of harm.
3. The Tribunal accepts as reasonable the information provided by the applicant's legal representative on 9 July 2025 as stated below.

'The US Department of State's 2023 Human Rights Report on the Democratic Republic of Congo states that there have been no 'significant changes in the human rights situation' with credible reports of unlawful killings, torture or cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment.[1] The report also confirms that there has been significant population displacement and human rights abuses, 'especially the Ituri and North Kivu Provinces.'[2] We note that the applicant's home province is North Kivu and as a young male with medical training, he is at particular risk of being forced into armed combat. This is supported by the findings of the report which states that there is evidence of 'sustained, direct intervention by the Rwanda Defense Force on Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) territory to reinforce and train M23 combatants and to plan and conduct military operations against the armed group Democratic Forces for the Liberation of Rwanda (FDLR).'[3]

1. Whilst the home province of the applicant is in the area of conflict, the applicant could choose to live outside of the conflict zone. This would reduce the risk of forced military service, and the dangers associated with such actions being forced on him.
2. The Tribunal also accepts that the applicant's financial circumstances will most likely be negatively impacted based upon the economic circumstances facing his country of citizenship and also Uganda. This would likely hamper any actions he may wish to undertake in order to appeal any decisions made by the Department.
3. The Tribunal gives this substantial weight in favour of not cancelling the visa.

1. The CRC unambiguously states the interests of the child are the primary consideration and that a child shall not be separated from his/her parents against their will, unless competent authorities determine that separation is necessary to protect the best interests of the child. The applicant does not have any children residing in Australia. All 5 of his children live in Uganda. The best interests of any children under the age of 18 in Australia who would be affected by the cancellation must be one of the primary considerations in this matter. This is not a current relevant consideration.
2. The Tribunal is aware the Procedures Advice Manual 3, (PAM) further provides that if there are children whose interests could be affected by the cancellation, or who would themselves be affected by consequential cancellation, delegates are "obliged to treat as a primary consideration the best interest of the children. This is not a relevant consideration in this case however the lives of his 5 children not in Australia may be enriched by his presence.
3. There is no information before the Tribunal to indicate the circumstances of this case are such to engage Australia's international obligations. No information has been presented to indicate there are any minor children in Australia whose interests may be adversely affected by the visa cancellation, which would require consideration of Australia's obligations under the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) or the International Covenant on Civil and Political rights (ICCPR). I note the visa holder has 6 siblings in Australia, however there is no information before me to indicate that the visa holder is their primary carer or that the children are reliant upon him. The applicant stated at the hearing he did not have any children in Australia.
4. The Tribunal gives this neutral weight in favour of cancelling the visa.

Whether there are mandatory legal consequences to a cancellation decision.

1. If the visa is cancelled, the visa holder will become an unlawful non-citizen. He may therefore be liable for detention under section 189. If he does not voluntarily depart Australia, he may be subject to removal under section 198 of the Act.

1. It is further noted by the Tribunal the visa holder would also be affected by section 48 of the Act. This would mean he will have limited options if applying for further visas while in Australia. Public Interest Criterion 4013 may prevent them from being granted particular temporary visas for a specific period and his future ability to return to Australia would be subject to potential barriers. This will place considerable restrictions upon the visa applicant and his siblings being able to spend meaningful time with each other into the future should that be desirable.
2. Should the applicant be removed from Australia, he may be subjected to the dangers of being forced to return to the DRC if unable to stay in Uganda. It is noted whilst living in a refugee camp in Uganda having fled the DRC, he does not have a current right to reside in Uganda. There can be no certainty as to the final place of residence if removed from Australia.
3. The Tribunal accepts that the applicant's home province is North Kivu which is an area of significant unrest and potential danger to him. It also notes that he has not lived there since departing the DRC in 2012. He is not restricted as to where he must live in the DRC if he is forced to return and unable to reside with his family in Uganda. He can choose to reside in other areas that are not subject to the level of unrest, fighting and potential danger as is his home province, where he last resided prior to his family fleeing. As his close family appear to be living in Uganda it is reasonable to assume his ties to a community and family would be most substantial in Uganda.
4. The applicants provided to the Tribunal concluded in 2021, copies of documents from the Office of the Prime Minister of Uganda, Dated 5 December 2018, showing that they were registered with the Office as refugees from the Democratic Republic of Congo.
5. The Tribunal gives this moderate weight in favour of not cancelling the visa.

1. The Tribunal has determined that here are no other matters for consideration relevant to this decision. It does however note an application for a [different] visa has been submitted to the Department. The form submission date was 17 January 2025. This is an entirely different matter separate to the matter under review in this hearing. Consequently, it will need to be determined on its merits by the Department in a separate assessment and decision.
2. The Tribunal has decided that there was substantial non-compliance by the applicant in the way described in the notice given under s 107 of the Act. Further, having regard to all the relevant circumstances, as discussed above, the Tribunal concludes that the visa should be cancelled.

1. The Tribunal affirms the decision to cancel the applicant's Subclass 117 (Orphan Relative) visa.

Representative for the Applicant: Ms Poorvaja Nirmaleswaran

(1) In this Act, unless the contrary intention appears:

bogus document, in relation to a person, means a document that the Minister reasonably suspects is a document that:

(a) purports to have been, but was not, issued in respect of the person; or

(b) is counterfeit or has been altered by a person who does not have authority to do so; or

(c) was obtained because of a false or misleading statement, whether or not made knowingly.

application form, in relation to a non‑citizen, means a form on which a non‑citizen applies for a visa, being a form that regulations made for the purposes of section 46 allow to be used for making the application.

passenger card has the meaning given by subsection 506(2) and, for the purposes of section 115, includes any document provided for by regulations under paragraph 504(1)(c).

Note: Bogus document is defined in subsection 5(1).

A non‑citizen who does not fill in his or her application form or passenger card is taken to do so if he or she causes it to be filled in or if it is otherwise filled in on his or her behalf.

Any information that a non‑citizen gives or provides, causes to be given or provided, or that is given or provided on his or her behalf, to the Minister, an officer, an authorised system, a person or the ART, reviewing a decision under this Act in relation to the non‑citizen's application for a visa is taken for the purposes of section 100, paragraphs 101(b) and 102(b) and sections 104 and 105 to be an answer to a question in the non‑citizen's application form, whether the information is given or provided orally or in writing and whether at an interview or otherwise.

For the purposes of this Subdivision, an answer to a question is incorrect even though the person who gave or provided the answer, or caused the answer to be given or provided, did not know that it was incorrect.

A non‑citizen must fill in or complete his or her application form in such a way that:

(a) all questions on it are answered; and

(b) no incorrect answers are given or provided.

A non‑citizen must not give, present, [produce][*] or provide to an officer, an authorised system, the Minister, or the ART, performing a function or purpose under this Act, a bogus document or cause such a document to be so given, presented, [produced][*] or provided.

1. Particulars of incorrect answers to be given

(1) If a non‑citizen becomes aware that:

(a) an answer given or provided in his or her application form; or

(b) an answer given in his or her passenger card; or

(c) information given by him or her under section 104 about the form or card; or

(d) a response given by him or her under section 107;

was incorrect when it was given or provided, he or she must, as soon as practicable, notify an officer in writing of the incorrectness and of the correct answer.

(2) Subsection (1) applies despite the grant of any visa.

(1) If the Minister considers that the holder of a visa who has been immigration cleared (whether or not because of that visa) did not comply with section 101, 102, 103, 104 or 105 or with subsection (2) in a response to a notice under this section, the Minister may give the holder a [written][] notice:

(a) giving particulars of the possible non‑compliance; and

(b) stating that, within a period stated in the notice as mentioned in subsection (1A), the holder may give the Minister a written response to the notice that:

(i) if the holder disputes that there was non‑compliance:

(B) in case the Minister decides under section 108 that, in spite of the statement under sub‑subparagraph (A), there was non‑compliance - shows cause why the visa should not be cancelled; or

(ii) if the holder accepts that there was non‑compliance:

(B) shows cause why the visa should not be cancelled; and

(c) stating that the Minister will consider cancelling the visa:

(i) if the holder gives the Minister oral or written notice, within the period stated as mentioned in subsection (1A), that he or she will not give a written response - when that notice is given; or

(ii) if the holder gives the Minister a written response within that period - when the response is given; or

(iii) otherwise - at the end of that period; and

(d) setting out the effect of sections 108, 109, 111 and 112; and

(e) informing the holder that the holder's obligations under section 104 or 105 are not affected by the notice under this section; and

(f) requiring the holder:

(i) to tell the Minister the address at which the holder is living; and

(ii) if the holder changes that address before the Minister notifies the holder of the Minister's decision on whether there was non‑compliance by the holder - to tell the Minister the changed address.

(1A) The period to be stated in the notice under subsection (1) must be:

(a) in respect of the holder of a temporary visa - the period prescribed by the regulations or, if no period is prescribed, a reasonable period; or

(b) otherwise - 14 days.

(1B) Regulations prescribing a period for the purposes of paragraph (1A)(a) may prescribe different periods and state when a particular period is to apply, which, without limiting the generality of the power, may be to:

(a) visas of a stated class; or

(b) visa holders in stated circumstances; or

(c) visa holders in a stated class of people (who may be visa holders in a particular place); or

(d) visa holders in a stated class of people (who may be visa holders in a particular place) in stated circumstances.

[(1C) The notice under subsection (1) must be given in the prescribed way. ][]

(2) If the visa holder responds to the notice, he or she must do so without making any incorrect statement.

(a) consider any response given by a visa holder in the way required by paragraph 107(1)(b); and

(b) decide whether there was non‑compliance by the visa holder in the way described in the notice.

1. Cancellation of visa if information incorrect

(1) The Minister, after:

(a) deciding under section 108 that there was non‑compliance by the holder of a visa; and

(b) considering any response to the notice about the non‑compliance given in a way required by paragraph 107(1)(b); and

(c) having regard to any prescribed circumstances;

(2) If the Minister may cancel a visa under subsection (1), the Minister must do so if there exist circumstances declared by the regulations to be circumstances in which a visa must be cancelled.

[1] United States Department of State, 'Democratic Republic of Congo 2023 Human Rights Report', available at: , p 1.

[*] This wording applies to documents given, presented, produced or provided on or after 4 November 2014: Schedule 7 to Counter Terrorism Legislation Amendment (Foreign Fighters) Act 2014 (No.116, 2014).

[] This wording applies to documents given on or after 1 November 2023: Schedule 1 to Migration Amendment (Giving Documents and Other Measures) Act 2023 (No 26, 2023)

[] This wording applies to documents given on or after 1 November 2023: Schedule 1 to Migration Amendment (Giving Documents and Other Measures) Act 2023 (No 26, 2023)