One man can not have total power over an immigrant because he is a minister. The AAT is a review body to check the relevant immigration status. That does not mean these people have done anything wrong.

If the immigrant does not like the decision of the tribunal they have 35 days to lodge their complaint to the courts.

All Dutton's department can do is refer certain people for review of status. He can not be a hatchet man because he may not like someone.

These people have already been partially accepted for migration, they are on bridging visas, so it would have to be something substantial for them not to be accepted for migration.

This has all the Hallmarks of a right wingers winge.

Doog: These people have already been partially accepted for migration, they are on bridging visas, so it would have to be something substantial for them not to be accepted for migration.

What part of: Don't you understand.
CHAPTER III – CESSATION CLAUSES
A. General
111. The so-called “cessation clauses” (Article 1 C (1) to (6) of the 1951 Convention) spell out the conditions under which a refugee ceases to be a refugee. They are based on the consideration that international protection should not be granted where it is no longer necessary or justified.
113. Article 1 C of the 1951 Convention provides that: “This Convention shall cease to apply to any person falling under the terms of section A if:
(1) He has voluntarily re-availed himself of the protection of the country of his nationality;

doog - Hey accepted under Dudd and Dillard, it was admitted then only a very small number were checked properly.

Simple FACT they lied

To quote you "This has all the Hallmarks of a right wingers winge."
So you are saying it is okay to lie to get an advantage, go try that argument next time in court or another situation that requires truthful answers.

Appeals
What are the provisions for appeal against the decisions by Immigration delegates in other comparable countries, eg US, UK, Europe?

Are the Australian arrangements unnecessarily encouraging and extending appeals, or resulting in too many or obviously counterproductive reversals of decisions by the immigration department? The last mentioned is exercising delegations of the minister and in accord with policy and regulations passed by the Parliament.

They may have either signed a declaration or swore an oath that they
were in fear of their life if returned to Iran.
They have had a court hearing previously.
If so they have committed perjury or made a false declaration.
It would be interesting to know what declaration is made when applying.
In the court hearing did they swear to tell the truth on the Koran ?
If so it is not worth the paper of which it is made.
Therefore they probably cannot be charged with perjury.

SR,

These seemingly preposterous decisions by the AAT make it very clear to the majority of Australians why so many of Dutton's decisions are rescinded.

While I am sure that there are other factors in the AAT's decision, the simple fact that these "asylum seekers" claimed that they were fleeing from a regime because remaining there put their lives in jeopardy, but, a short time later could return for holidays makes their original claim extremely dubious.

As it is a criminal offense to lie on official documents, perhaps it would be in Dutton's interest to prosecute them. Then their visa can be cancelled on the grounds of poor character.