1502112 (Migration)

This matter concerned an appeal by Mr. Mohajan against the decision of the Migration Review Tribunal to affirm the refusal of his Skilled Nominated (Permanent) Subclass 190 visa. The central dispute revolved around whether Mr. Mohajan satisfied Public Interest Criterion (PIC) 4020, a requirement for the visa grant under cl.190.216 of the Migration Regulations 1994.

The legal issues before the Tribunal were whether Mr. Mohajan had provided, or caused to be provided, a bogus document or information that was false or misleading in a material particular in relation to his visa application, as contemplated by cl.4020(1). The Tribunal was also required to consider the definitions of "bogus document" under s.5(1) of the Migration Act 1958 and "information that is false or misleading in a material particular" under cl.4020(5) of the Regulations.

The Tribunal reasoned that the work references and payslips from Parfait Associates Ltd, which stated Mr. Mohajan was employed as a superintending engineer, constituted either a bogus document or false and misleading information. It was noted that the definition of a bogus document does not require the false or misleading statement to be relevant to a visa criterion, unlike the definition of false or misleading information. Furthermore, the Tribunal observed that cl.4020(3) applies regardless of whether the Minister became aware of the issue due to information provided by the applicant, and that knowledge of the falsity by the applicant is not a prerequisite for the criterion to be engaged, although an element of fraud or deception is necessary.

Ultimately, the Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant Mr. Mohajan the visa, concluding that he did not satisfy PIC 4020.