1418439 (Migration) - [2015] AATA 3091

1418439 (Migration) [2015] AATA 3091 (7 July 2015)
DECISION RECORD
DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division
APPLICANT:  Mr Gurveer Singh Kaushik
CASE NUMBER:  1418439
DIBP REFERENCE(S):  BCC2009/464877
MEMBER:Wan Shum
DATE:7 July 2015
PLACE OF DECISION:  Sydney
DECISION:The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicant a Skilled (Residence) (Class VB) visa.
Statement made on 7 July 2015 at 3:41pm

STATEMENT OF DECISION AND REASONS
APPLICATION FOR REVIEW

This is an application for review of a decision made by a delegate of the Minister for Immigration on 10 July 2013 to refuse to grant the applicant a Skilled (Residence) (Class VB) visa under s.65 of the Migration Act 1958 (the Act).
The applicant applied for the Subclass 886 visa on 25 November 2009.
To meet one of the requirements for the grant of the visa sought, the applicant provided evidence of a skills assessment from Trades Recognition Australia (TRA) in the occupation of cook. The TRA assessment was based on evidence of his qualifications and 900 hours’ work experience.
Following an investigation, a delegate of the Minister of Immigration concluded that the TRA skills assessment was a bogus document and thus found that the applicant did not satisfy Public Interest Criterion 4020(1). The delegate was not satisfied that there were circumstances justifying the grant of the visa to waive the requirements of Public Interest Criterion 4020(1) and refused to grant the applicant the visa on the basis that the applicant did not satisfy the requirements of cl.886.225 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994 (the Regulations).
The applicant sought review of that decision which was affirmed by the Tribunal, differently constituted, on 4 December 2013. The applicant filed an application in the Federal Circuit Court of Australia at Brisbane and, on 4 November 2014, the court ordered by consent that the matter be remitted back to the Tribunal to reconsider the matter according to law.
The applicant was represented in relation to the review by his registered migration agent, Mr Lorenzo Boccabella. The applicant appeared before this Tribunal on 29 April 2015 to give evidence and present arguments with his representative.
BACKGROUND
The applicant is a national of India, born in September 1987. He first travelled to Australia as a holder of a Subclass 573 (Student) visa in June 2007.
In order to be granted a Subclass 886 visa, the applicant had to apply for an assessment of his skills for the nominated skilled occupation by the relevant assessing authority (cl.886.212) and give evidence that his skills had been assessed as being suitable for the nominated skilled occupation (cl.886.223).
On the Subclass 886 visa application form, it was indicated that the applicant had applied for an assessment of his skills for the nominated skilled occupation of cook. The ‘relevant assessing authority’ for the occupation of cook is Trades Recognition Australia (TRA) (Legislative Instrument IMMI 12/068). It was indicated on the form that he had obtained a skills assessment from TRA on 16 September 2009 with the reference or receipt number of TRA09/062251498. It was elsewhere indicated on the application form that the applicant had completed two courses at Holmes Institute, being a Certificate IV in Hospitality (Commercial cookery) and a Diploma of Hospitality Management from July 2007 to July 2009.
The skills assessment from TRA dated 16 September 2009 states that the applicant’s application for a skills assessment was successful and that for the purposes of the skills assessment component of the migration process his occupation is Cook 4513-11. It states that the evidence provided has satisfied formal training requirements and has satisfied 900 hours directly related work experience.
To obtain this assessment, the applicant had supplied to TRA evidence of formal training requirements and documents supporting his claim to have 900 hours’ work experience from Maharaja Indian Restaurant. Those documents included a letter dated 4 June 2009 stating that the applicant had been working as a cook at Maharaja Indian Restaurant from 2 August 2008 till present.
While his visa application was being processed, an investigation was conducted by the Department of Immigration, with a site visit and interview of Mr Baljit Binning, owner of the Maharaja restaurant, carried out on 15 February 2011. Mr Binning was shown photographs of the 30 odd applicants claiming work experience at his restaurant, although a small number of photographs were unavailable and shown to him at a later date. According to the report on the site visit and interview plan, Mr Binning was asked questions regarding the operation and staffing of the restaurant including the duties undertaken by students who genuinely worked at the restaurant during the relevant period, of which he said there were around 5 or 6 students. Based on the information provided by the owner during the 15 February 2011 interview, the investigating officers concluded that the applicant had not undertaken the work experience as stated in the employment reference provided to TRA. It was noted that the owner was unable to verify his identity or confirm that he had completed work experience at the Maharaja Indian Restaurant.
The applicant was sent a letter inviting him to comment on the information that the owner was unable to verify his identity or confirm that he had completed work experience at the Maharaja Indian Restaurant during its investigation in February 2011.
In response, the applicant’s then representative forwarded the following documents to support his claim of having undertaken the necessary work experience: a statutory declaration of Mr Baljit Binning; a statutory declaration of the applicant and a letter from Holmes College confirming receipt of a log book of work experience.
The letter from Holmes College states that the applicant was required to maintain a log book of work experience to complete his course, which was handed in and deemed competent on 31 July 2009. According to the letter, the applicant had undertaken a Diploma of Hospitality Management course from 23 July 2007 to 4 July 2008; and then enrolled in a Commercial Cookery Certificate IV course commencing on 21 July 2008 and concluding on 3 July 2009. The applicant stated that, as part of his course, he had to complete 300 hours of work experience which was done at Maharaja Indian Restaurant. He stated that the owner would sign off on his log book which he then handed to his education provider upon completion of his course. The applicant indicated that he had tried to obtain a copy of the log book from Holmes College but had been advised that they only keep records for a period of 18 months after completion of the course and that he had not thought to keep a copy himself. Mr Binning stated in his statutory declaration that, in relation to the log book, he recalled signing a log book for the applicant after every shift. He confirmed that the applicant had completed over 900 hours’ work experience in the restaurant and that the letter dated 4 June 2009 given to TRA is true and correct and personally signed by him.
The delegate considered the response but was satisfied on the evidence that the work reference documents contained false and misleading information about the work experience he undertook at Maharaja Restaurant. The delegate concluded that the work reference letter was a bogus document which was provided to the department in support of the visa application and found that the applicant did not satisfy PIC 4020(1). The delegate was not satisfied that there were relevant circumstances to waive that provision and found that PIC 4020 was not satisfied.
The earlier decision of the Tribunal, differently constituted, was remitted for reconsideration by the Court. The reason for the remittal was because the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection conceded that the decision was affected by jurisdictional error as the Tribunal failed to consider relevant material by ignoring corroborative evidence in makings its credibility findings.
CONSIDERATION OF ISSUE
The issue in this review is whether the visa applicant meets Public Interest Criterion 4020 (PIC 4020) as required by cl.886.225(a) for the grant of the visa. Broadly speaking, this requires that:
·there is no evidence that the applicant has given, or caused to be given, to the Minister, an officer, the Tribunal, a relevant assessing authority, or Medical officer of the Commonwealth, a bogus document or information that is false or misleading in a material particular in relation to the application for the visa or a visa that the applicant held in the 12 months before the application was made: cl.4020(1); and
·the applicant and each member of the family unit has not been refused a visa because of a failure to satisfy cl.4020(1) during the period starting 3 years before the application was made and ending when the visa is granted or refused, unless the applicant was under 18 at the time the application for the refused visa was made: cl.4020(2) and (2AA); and
·the applicant satisfies the Minister as to his or her identity: cl.4020(2A); and
·neither the applicant nor any family unit member has been refused a visa because of a failure to satisfy cl.4020(2A) during the period starting 10 years before the application was made and ending when the visa is granted or refused, unless the applicant was under 18 at the time the application for the refused visa was made: cl.4020(2B) and (2BA).
The requirements in cl.4020(1) and (2) can be waived if there are certain compelling or compassionate reasons justifying the granting of the visa: cl.4020(4). However, this waiver does not apply to the identity requirements in cl.4020(2A) and (2B). PIC 4020 is extracted in the attachment to this decision.
Has the applicant given, or caused to be given a bogus document, or information that is false or misleading in material particular?
The term ‘information that is false or misleading in a material particular’ is defined in cl.4020(5) and the term ‘bogus document’ is defined in s.5(1) of the Act (see the attachment to this decision). In contrast to the definition of ‘information that is false or misleading in a material particular’ in cl.4020(5), the reference in the definition of bogus document to a document that was obtained because of a ‘false or misleading’ statement has no requirement that it be relevant to a criterion for the grant of the visa: Batra v MIAC [2013] FCA 274.
The requirement in cl.4020(1) not to provide a bogus document, or false or misleading information, applies whether or not the Minister became aware of the bogus document or information that is false or misleading in a material particular because of information given by the applicant: cl.4020(3). It also applies whether or not the document or information was provided by the applicant knowingly or unwittingly.
While PIC 4020 refers to information that is false, in the sense of purposely untrue, it is not necessary for the Minister (or the Tribunal on review) to conclude that the applicant was aware the information was purposely untrue in order for PIC 4020 to be engaged. However, an element of fraud or deception by some person is necessary to attract the operation of the provision: Trivedi v MIBP [2014] FCAFC 42.
The applicant claims that he genuinely worked at Maharaja Indian Restaurant for at least 900 hours as required. It was submitted by the applicant’s representative that there is evidence that he completed 300 hours’ work experience, as verified by the education provider, and that the Tribunal should accept that the applicant had completed the remaining 600 hours based on his detailed testimony at the hearing. It was further submitted that there were ample grounds to apply the PIC 4020(4) waiver, even without making any determination of whether the applicant was involved in fraud.
The Tribunal has had regard to the submission, and has carefully considered and weighed up all the evidence before it.
In this case, there is information before the Tribunal which raises concerns as to whether the letter from Maharaja Indian Restaurant that the applicant provided to TRA was genuine. This information is that, during an interview on 15 February 2011, the owner of the restaurant was unable to recognise the applicant when shown a photograph of him. After the applicant was informed of this by the department and invited to comment, a statutory declaration was provided from Mr Binning confirming that the applicant had completed 900 hours’ work experience as a Cook. On review, additional statutory declarations from Mr Binning and his wife, in her capacity as the head chef of the restaurant, were provided.
There was also a statutory declaration from Mr Harpreet Singh, who claimed to have done both voluntary and paid work at the restaurant. However, during the interview with Mr Binning in February 2011, Mr Binning also failed to recognise Mr Harpreet Singh’s photograph and signed a document saying that he had not worked there. This appears to be the corroborative evidence that the Minister conceded had not been properly considered by the earlier Tribunal. This Tribunal obtained a copy of the site visit report relating to the February 2011 interview which was provided in redacted form, and sought verification from the Department of Immigration that Mr Harpreet Singh was one of the 23 students/applicants that had not been recognised. An officer of the department confirmed that the investigation report indicated that the employer had been unable to verify the identity of Mr Harpreet Singh and had confirmed that he did not provide him with a work reference letter at the interview. Given this, the Tribunal considers that Mr Binning’s responses at the interview in February 2011 as to who completed work experience is somewhat less reliable than would be desired. Nevertheless, it is not prepared to accept that all the persons claiming to have undertaken work experience at his restaurant did do so. This appeared to be in excess of 30 people based on the redacted site visit report before the Tribunal.
While the Tribunal has concerns about the reliability of Mr Binning for the reasons given below, the maximum number of people that he has claimed undertook work experience at his restaurant (at different points in time) was 10.
The subsequent evidence that has been provided from Mr Binning and his wife, in respect of the applicant is that he did undertake 900 hours’ of work experience at Maharaja Restaurant.
However, the Tribunal has concerns about the reliability and credibility of Mr Binning and his wife. This is because, when asked during tribunal hearings of other applicants who claimed work experience at the Maharaja Restaurant about how many students he had working at the restaurant for work experience in 2008 and 2009, Mr Binning has given different evidence. Mr Binning gave oral evidence at one tribunal hearing, before a different tribunal member, that he had taken on 3 work experience students at the restaurant. When Mr Binning appeared as a witness in at least 3 hearings before another tribunal member in the matters of Bajwa v MIBP [2014] FCCA 2890, Sekhon v MIBP [2014] FCCA 2834 and Nanre v MIBP [2015] FCCA 134, his evidence regarding numbers of work experience students varied. During one of the hearings he said there were 6 students, while at another he said he had signed ‘about 10 references’ and at a third hearing he confirmed that there were between 6 to 9 students. In a statutory declaration made in October 2013 that was provided for this application, Mr Binning stated that he knew that there were bogus documents circulating relating to Maharaja’s as he had a stamp and his ABN stolen, and “because there was such a large number of photographs of people claiming to have worked at Maharaja Indian Restaurant”. Whether or not this is true, Mr Binning indicated that he had only ever had about 8 or 9 people who legitimately worked and completed work experience for him.
In addition, when Mr Binning and his wife both appeared as witnesses at the same hearing in respect of other claimed work experience students, their evidence was also inconsistent with each other. Their evidence as to when and how many staff were employed each night differed and they also gave inconsistent evidence about recording keeping in relation to the students. They had difficulty recalling at the hearings for the same applicant in those cases, who worked there at the same time and provided different names when asked about the students who worked at Maharaja Restaurant at the same time as the applicant whose hearing they had attended as witnesses. In the circumstances, the Tribunal considers both Mr Binning and his wife are not reliable or credible witnesses. It does not accept that the inconsistencies were due to any variation in the numbers of people working there from time to time.
In determining whether there is evidence in this case that the applicant has given, or caused to be given, to the Minister, an officer, the Tribunal, a relevant assessing authority or a Medical Officer of the Commonwealth a ‘bogus document’ or ‘information that is false or misleading in a material particular’, the Tribunal has assessed the evidence before it regarding the applicant’s claimed total hours of work experience.
The applicant’s claims are that he began working at the Maharaja Restaurant from 2 August 2008, and that he completed 900 hours’ work experience prior to June 2009. He claims to have continued working on a volunteer basis there until September 2009, even after the 900 hours were completed.
On the information before it, the Tribunal considers there is sufficient evidence to find that the applicant undertook 300 hours of work experience at Maharaja Restaurant. It is prepared to accept that, while the letter from Holmes College does not identify the restaurant in which he undertook the required work experience for completion of his course there, evidence from other sources support his claim to have undertaken work experience at Maharaja Restaurant. This includes that of Mr Harpreet Singh, who confirmed that the applicant had also worked at the restaurant as a volunteer cook while he was working there. Mr Harpreet Singh claims to have worked there on a voluntary basis from 21 January 2009 to 19 December 2009, and then as a paid employee from 17 October 2010 to 20 November 2011.
However, the Tribunal is not prepared to accept that the applicant had completed over 900 hours of work experience at Maharaja Restaurant as claimed. The only corroborative evidence presented of having undertaken the 900 hours of work experience were letters and statutory declarations from Mr Binning and his wife. Neither of whom the Tribunal considers are reliable or credible for the reasons outlined above. The Tribunal is not prepared to accept the applicant’s own assertions as to the total number of hours worked without more. It was not convinced by the applicant’s responses to its questions during the hearing or the photographs presented that he completed the necessary 900 hours. For example, his evidence as to the appearance of the dining area of the restaurant could easily be gained through attending the restaurant as a customer, of which he did, having regard to the photographs provided of a joint birthday celebration with his cousin at the restaurant. The statutory declarations from other parties, including from those who also claimed to have worked at the restaurant do not, and could not, support his claim to have completed over 900 hours as a cook. This is because the periods of work undertaken by Mr Singh and Mr Devgan do not cover the entire period the applicant claims to have worked there, and neither claim that they worked exactly the same shifts and hours as the applicant. His cousin, who supported the applicant during his study, would also not be in a position to categorically state the total number of hours the applicant worked as, while he said he would sometimes drive the applicant to work and occasionally ate at the restaurant, he himself did not work at the restaurant or personally witness the applicant undertaking the necessary work experience for the 900 hours.

The total hours of work experience is critical because 900 hours is the minimum number of hours that was required by TRA at the time the applicant applied for a skills assessment for this visa. There is no dispute that the skills assessment outcome would not have been favourable if the total hours claimed was less than 900 hours. The Tribunal acknowledges that TRA accepted claims of voluntary work experience and that, in the circumstances, corroborative evidence in the nature of payslips was not required. However, this does not explain why there is nothing to document or support his claim other than that provided by Mr Binning and his wife. The applicant clearly had kept a record for the 300 hours of claimed work experience required for his college studies in the form of a logbook. It seems to the Tribunal that having to undertake a further 600 hours would require some type of recordkeeping by the applicant or the restaurant, to ensure the minimum number of hours was worked. However, nothing of the sort has been provided.
It notes the submission that the TRA policy forced students to do unpaid work, which it does not accept, and in any case, this statement does not make out the applicant’s assertion to have completed the required hours.
It was further submitted that subsequent evidence in the form of employment and employment offers tended to support that the applicant had developed the necessary skills as a cook during the claimed period of voluntary work experience. This includes employment as a Commis chef from October 2012. The Tribunal was also provided with a letter of appointment dated 6 April 2015 as a ‘Cast Member 1 – Kitchen’ from Dome café and a letter from his supervisor there, as well as a letter dated 16 April 2015 confirming that he had undertaken volunteer work as a kitchen volunteer at Addie Mills Centre from November 2014, assisting the Kitchen Attendant, but had stopped due to full time work. In addition, the applicant had been involved in a cooking demonstration on a radio program in 2013 in which he prepared a fish curry dish he claims to have learnt during his time at Maharaja Restaurant.
While the Tribunal acknowledges subsequent employment related to cooking and/or working in a kitchen, it does not accept that this supports his assertion to have undertaken a minimum of 900 hours of work experience as a cook at the Maharaja Indian Restaurant as claimed.
As referred to in the representative’s submission, there is no doubt that some fraud was committed in relation to these matters and whether or not Mr Binning was personally involved, will never be known. In any case, the Tribunal is not persuaded that the applicant undertook 900 hours of work experience on the information before it.
The Tribunal reasonably suspects that the applicant’s TRA skills assessment was obtained as a result of a false or misleading statement, whether or not made knowingly. The Tribunal finds that the TRA skills assessment is a ‘bogus document’ as defined. As a copy of the TRA skills assessment was given to the Department during the processing of the visa application the subject of this review, the Tribunal finds that there is evidence the applicant has given, or caused to be given, to the Minister, an officer a bogus document in relation to the application for the visa.
Therefore, the applicant does not meet cl.4020(1).
Should the requirements of cl.4020(1) or (2) be waived?
The requirements of cl.4020(1) and (2) may be waived where there are compelling circumstances that affect the interests of Australia, or where there are compassionate or compelling circumstances that affect the interests of an Australian citizen, an Australian permanent resident, or an eligible New Zealand citizen (as defined in r.1.03), that justify the granting of the visa.
In this regard, it was earlier submitted that the applicant had immediate family who are Australian citizens, including an aunt/uncle and cousins. His spouse was studying and her brother is an Australian citizen.
It was further submitted that he has been residing in Australia permanently since his arrival in 2007. He is a hardworking and law abiding resident.
Following the invitation to comment, the current representative submitted that affirming the refusal would ultimately require the applicant to leave Australia. This would impact on his wife, who holds a RSMS visa and is regarded as a very valuable employee by her employer G8 Education. It was stated that if she departed Perth before the two year period, there would be grounds for cancellation of her visa, and her life would be seriously disrupted.
It was submitted that if PIC 4020 was found to apply, for all practical purposes the applicant would not be able to apply for any visa, offshore or onshore, prior to 11 July 2016 because of the application of PIC 4020(2).
In the circumstances, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the requirements should be waived. It does not consider that the consequence of PIC 4020(2) applying to the applicant amounts to compassionate or compelling circumstances that affect his wife, an Australian permanent resident. The applicant’s wife has stated that she is in her late twenties and wants to plan for their future, such as extending their family and buying a house which she cannot do without her husband. She referred to her brother and his family living in Canberra, and other friends who live in Australia. She wants her husband to be with her and, as a follower of Indian culture, she would have to stay where her husband stays. It appears to the Tribunal that the applicant’s wife has a choice to remain in Australia and continue her work with her current employer until her husband is able to return, or she can leave with him. It notes that the applicant’s wife applied for the RSMS visa and did not include the applicant as a member of her family unit, because he was found not to satisfy PIC 4020 in relation to the Subclass 886 visa application. Any decision made by his wife as to whether to stay or leave is temporary in nature. As the 3 year exclusion period ends in around 12 months, the Tribunal does not consider that any plans to have children and buy a house would be so affected as to amount to compassionate or compelling circumstances affecting his wife that justify the granting of the Subclass 886 visa to the applicant. It is not uncommon for a husband and wife to have to spend time apart during their marriage, and there is nothing compelling or compassionate in terms of the circumstances presented in this case.
The Tribunal acknowledges that the applicant is currently in paid employment with Dome Café, Cockburn and that his supervisor considers that, in the month since his employment there, he had demonstrated himself to be hardworking and dedicated. However, having to terminate his employment at Dome Café is not a compelling circumstance that affects the interests of Australia that justify the granting of the visa.
The applicant’s period of time living in Australia is also not a matter which the Tribunal considers gives rise to relevant circumstances that justify the granting of the visa. Other than his wife, limited information was provided about the impact on relatives that are Australian citizens. Having regard to the submissions and claims made, the Tribunal does not consider that there are relevant circumstances that justify the granting of the visa in this case.
Therefore the requirements of cl.4020(1) should not be waived.
Has the applicant satisfied the identity requirements?
Clause 4020(2A) requires an applicant satisfy the Tribunal as to his or her identity. There is nothing before the Tribunal which indicates that identity issues arise. On the evidence before it, the Tribunal is satisfied as to the applicant’s identity.
Therefore, the applicant meets cl.4020(2A).
Has a visa previously been refused on the basis of a failure to satisfy cl.4020(2A)?
Clause 4020(2B) requires that neither the applicant nor any family unit member have been refused a visa because of a failure to satisfy the identity requirements in cl.4020(2A) during the period starting 10 years before the application was made and ending when the visa is granted or refused. This requirement does not apply to a person who was under 18 at the time the application for the refused visa was made: cl.4020(2BA).
Neither the applicant nor any member of the family unit (as defined in r.1.12) have been refused a visa in the relevant period because of a failure to satisfy cl.4020(2A).
Therefore cl.4020(2B) is met.
Conclusion
On the basis of the above, the applicant does not satisfy PIC 4020 for the purposes of cl.886.225(a).
DECISION
The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicant a Skilled (Residence) (Class VB) visa.
Wan Shum
Member
ATTACHMENT
Migration Regulations 1994
Schedule 4
4020(1) There is no evidence before the Minister that the applicant has given, or caused to be given, to the Minister, an officer, the Tribunal during the review of a Part 5 reviewable decision, a relevant assessing authority or a Medical Officer of the Commonwealth, a bogus document or information that is false or misleading in a material particular in relation to:
(a)the application for the visa; or
(b)a visa that the applicant held in the period of 12 months before the application was made.
(2)The Minister is satisfied that during the period:
(a)starting 3 years before the application was made; and
(b)ending when the Minister makes a decision to grant or refuse to grant the visa;
the applicant and each member of a family unit of the applicant has not been refused a visa because of a failure to satisfy the criteria in subclause (1).
(2AA)However, subclause (2) does not apply to the applicant if, at the time the application for the refused visa was made, the applicant was under 18.
(2A)The applicant satisfies the Minister as to the applicant’s identity.
(2B)The Minister is satisfied that during the period:
(a)starting 10 years before the application was made; and
(b)ending when the Minister makes a decision to grant or refuse to grant the visa;
neither the applicant, nor any member of the family unit of the applicant, has been refused a visa because of a failure to satisfy the criteria in subclause (2A).
(2BA)However, subclause (2B) does not apply to the applicant if, at the time the application for the refused visa was made, the applicant was under 18.
(3)To avoid doubt, subclauses (1) and (2) apply whether or not the Minister became aware of the bogus document or information that is false or misleading in a material particular because of information given by the applicant.
(4)The Minister may waive the requirements of any or all of paragraphs (1)(a) or (b) and subclause (2) if satisfied that:
(a)compelling circumstances that affect the interests of Australia; or
(b)compassionate or compelling circumstances that affect the interests of an Australian citizen, an Australian permanent resident or an eligible New Zealand citizen;
justify the granting of the visa.
(5)In this clause:
information that is false or misleading in a material particular means information that is:
(a)false or misleading at the time it is given; and
(b)relevant to any of the criteria the Minister may consider when making a decision on an application, whether or not the decision is made because of that information.
…
Migration Act 1958
s.5 Interpretation
(1) In this Act, unless 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.
…