1314063 (Migration)

[2015] AATA 3732

1314063 (Migration) [2015] AATA 3732 (17 November 2015)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

APPLICANT:  Mr Kamal Kishore

CASE NUMBER:  1314063

DIBP REFERENCE(S):  CLF2013/94412

MEMBER:Tim Connellan

DATE AND TIME OF

ORAL DECISION AND REASONS:          17 November 2015 at 3:03 pm (VIC time)

DATE OF WRITTEN RECORD:                18 November 2015

PLACE OF DECISION:  Melbourne

DECISION:The Tribunal affirms the decision under review.

Statement made on 18 November 2015 at 11:53am

APPLICATION FOR REVIEW

1. This is an application for review of a decision made by a delegate of the Minister for Immigration on 18 September 2013 to refuse to grant the visa applicant a Student (Temporary) (Class TU) Subclass 572 visa under the Migration Act 1958 (the Act).

2. At the hearing on 17 November 2019 the Tribunal made an oral decision and gave an oral statement of decision and reasons. The following is the written record of those reasons.

   STATEMENT OF DECISION AND REASONS

3. You have been in Australia since 30 July 2009

4. This application for a student visa was lodged on 1 May 2013

5. To be eligible for the grant of a student visa an applicant must satisfy a range of criteria set out in the Regulations.

6. Your application was refused on 18 September 2013 because the delegate found you did not meet a criterion in cl.572.224 which deals with what are known as Public Interest Criteria.

7. One of those is PIC 4020 which states that to satisfy this criterion: There is no evidence before the Minister (or in this case the tribunal) that the applicant has given, or caused to be given, a bogus document or information that is false or misleading in a material particular in relation to the application for the visa.

8. In your case, reading from the primary decision, a copy of which you provided with your review application, an investigation officer contacted the relevant bank, Axis Bank and was informed that the evidence of the fixed deposits provided was non-genuine.

9. The report of the integrity check states that the bank advised that they did not issue the documents provided and the documents appeared to be fake. The

10. When invited to comment, you said you had contacted the broker who had arranged the loan documents and the broker advised there was a technical problem with the Axis Bank and the bank system might not have been updated.

11. At the previous hearing with Member Jordan, she provided you with the results of the integrity checking under s.359AA and the hearing was adjourned to enable you to consider your response. On resumption of the hearing you stated that all documents had been provided by the broker who told you that they were genuine.

12. Today your migration agent says the contention by the broker was that there were technical problems, you believe the documents were genuine and he invited the tribunal to make further enquiries in light of your submissions.

13. The situation is, I do not believe further enquiries are warranted. Documents have been provided and the issue as far as I’m concerned is not whether the subject matter in the documents is accurate due to a technical problems or otherwise. The advice from the bank having inspected the documents is, these documents were not issued by this bank, they are fake documents. I do not believe that the circumstances warrant further enquiry or evidence.

14. There is no evidence provided that there was a technical problem at the Axis bank.

15. On the evidence presented, the tribunal finds that you have provided documents that were non-genuine and therefore do not satisfy PIC 4020.

16. The decision as to whether or not a visa application is refused when an applicant fails to meet PIC 4020 may be waived if there are compelling circumstances that affect the interests of Australia; or compassionate or compelling circumstances that affect the interests of an Australian citizen, permanent resident or an eligible New Zealand citizen - which justify the granting of the visa

    At both this and the previous hearing you declared there were no such circumstances andIn the circumstances, it is the decision of the tribunal to affirm the decision under review.

17. This means that the primary decision to refuse your visa application stands.

18. This decision was made at  3.03 pm on this the 17 November 2015

    DECISION

19. The Tribunal affirms the decision under review.

    Tim Connellan
    Member