1503962 (Migration)

[2016] AATA 3037

1503962 (Migration) [2016] AATA 3037 (14 January 2016)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

APPLICANTS:  Mr Muhammad Shakeel Ahmad
Mrs Fozia Naheed
Mr Shahar Yar Ahmad
Mr Sharjeel Ahmad
Master Saad Ahmad

CASE NUMBER:  1503962

DIBP REFERENCE(S):  CLF2014/67750 CLF2014/67754 CLF2014/67755 CLF2014/67756 CLF2014/67757 CLF2015/18008

MEMBER:Sue Raymond

DATE:14 January 2016

PLACE OF DECISION:  Adelaide

DECISION:The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicants Business Skills (Residence) (Class DF) visas.

Statement made on 14 January 2016 at 6:16pm

STATEMENT OF DECISION AND REASONS

APPLICATION FOR REVIEW

1. This is an application for review of a decision made by a delegate of the Minister for Immigration on 3 March 2015 to refuse to grant the applicants Business Skills (Residence) (Class DF) visas under s.65 of the Migration Act 1958 (the Act).

2. The applicants applied for the visas on 8 May 2014. The delegate refused to grant the visas on the basis that the first named applicant (the primary applicant) did not satisfy the requirements of cl.892.223 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994 (the Regulations). This was because the delegate was satisfied that the documents provided by the applicant to support the character requirements,[namely four Pakistan police clearances in respect of the first four named applicants] are bogus documents albeit that the delegate acknowledged that they were purported to be provided unknowingly. The delegate found that there are no compelling circumstances affecting the interests of Australia, nor are they compelling and compassionate reasons that affect the interests of an Australian citizen, an Australian permanent resident or an eligible New Zealand citizen. The delegate was not satisfied that the primary applicant meets public interest criterion 4020 (1). Essentially the applications for the secondary applicants appeared to be refused on the basis of the refusal of the primary applicant’s application.

3. The applicants appeared before the Tribunal on 29 October 2015 to give evidence and present arguments. Mr Muhammad Ahmad (the primary applicant) gave sworn evidence.

4. The applicants were represented in relation to the review by their registered migration agent who also attended the hearing. Mr Lachlan Riches, a solicitor and migration agent, also attended the hearing.

5. A considerable amount of documentation was lodged with the Tribunal online in advance of the hearing[1] and the Tribunal has had regard to that and the material contained in the departmental files. There is a statutory declaration of the first named applicant which is declared on 26 October 2015. There is also a written submission provided by the applicant’s representative and which is written by Mr Lachlan Riches. There were many letters of support provided by various academics from many different countries.

   [1] Marked as 1-46 with green tags on the Tribunal file

6. The Tribunal also received some journals from the applicants; American Journal of Immunology, Volume 9 Issue 2, 2013; American Journal of Applied Sciences Volume 10, Issue 9; Journal of Computer Science Volume 10 Issue 8; American Journal of Environmental Sciences Volume 10 Issue 5; Journal of Social Science Volume 9 Issue 2 and two Science Publication brochures.

7. Following the hearing considerable additional documentation has been provided to the Tribunal, including numerous articles. The Tribunal has had regard to that material[2] in reaching its decision.

   [2] Marked as 47-65 with green tags on the Tribunal file

8. For the following reasons, the Tribunal has concluded that the decision under review should be affirmed.

   CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE

9. The issue in this review is whether the primary visa applicant meets Public Interest Criterion 4020 (PIC 4020) as required by cl.892.223 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);

10. The requirements in PIC 4020(1) and (2) can be waived if there are certain compelling or compassionate reasons justifying the granting of the visa: cl.4020(4). PIC 4020 is extracted in the annexure 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?

11. 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 annexure 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.

12. 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.

13. In this case the documents relevant to this consideration are Pakistan police clearance certificates in relation to each of the first four named applicants, which were provided to the Department on 8 October 2014.

14. The departmental decision record (a copy of which was provided to the Tribunal as part of the review process) indicates as follows: “Departmental checks conducted on the police clearance for AHMAD, Muhammad Shakeel …with the relevant authorities in Pakistan indicate that the certificate provided is a bogus document. The authority has confirmed that though the serial number stated on the character certificate exists, it does not belong to AHMAD, Muhammad Shakeel….

15. Further departmental checks conducted on the police clearances for the other three applicants… with the relevant authorities in Pakistan also indicate that the certificate provided with serial numbers… are bogus documents as there is no evidence with the Pakistan authorities to suggest that these clearances have been issued.”

16. This issue has been conceded by the representative for the applicants. Based on the concession and the other evidence before the Tribunal, it finds that there is evidence before the Tribunal that the primary applicant has given, or caused to be given to the Minister, or an officer, a bogus document, namely a Pakistan Police Clearance Certificate No.5263/S[3]. The Tribunal finds that it is a bogus document on the basis that it reasonably suspects it is a document that purports to have been, but was not, issued in respect of the person, Mr Ahmad, the primary visa applicant. In the alternative, the Tribunal finds that it was not duly issued by the appropriate issuing authority and is therefore counterfeit. The Tribunal also finds that is a bogus document in relation to the application for the subclass 892 visa. In this regard, in considering the matter in respect of the primary visa applicant, Mr Muhammad Ahmad, the Tribunal relies on the bogus document related to Mr Muhammad Ahmad.

    [3] Copy on reverse side of folio 87 Part 6 of departmental file

17. Therefore, the primary applicant, Mr Muhammad Ahmad, does not meet cl.4020(1).

    Should the requirements of cl.4020(1) or (2) be waived?

18. 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. The applicants were not asserting that there were circumstances that affect the interests of an Australian citizen, an Australian permanent resident or an eligible New Zealand citizen.

19. The focus of the Tribunal hearing was related to the requirement of PIC4020(4)(a), namely whether the Tribunal is satisfied that compelling circumstances that affect the interests of Australia, justify the granting of the visa. It was not submitted that the alternative provision of the waiver outlined in PIC 4020(4)(b) is applicable, and in any event the Tribunal is not satisfied that this aspect of the waiver criterion is satisfied.

20. There is no definition of “compelling” nor what are “the interests of Australia”. The Tribunal has had regard to departmental policy contained in PAM[4] but it does not regard itself as limited or constrained by the policy. It must consider all the circumstances as to whether it is satisfied in the terms of PIC 4020(4)(a).

    The nature of the Business

    [4] Set out in the annexure to these reasons

21. The applicant outlined in a statutory declaration, declared on 26 October 2015 and submitted to the Tribunal[5], a great deal of detail about his business. He also provided oral evidence at the hearing. The legal written submissions also recounted information about the business but to the extent they refer to factual material, the Tribunal relies on the oral and written evidence of the primary applicant in this regard. The Tribunal finds that the primary applicant runs a business called Science Publications and has done so since 2004 when he commenced the business in the United States. He has worked in the business in the United States until 2008, in Pakistan until 2011 and from 2011 in Australia.

    [5] Green tag 43 of the Tribunal file

22. In asking Mr Ahmad to describe the nature of the business he indicated that it was publishing scientific, technological and medical journals; organising and sponsoring conferences and organising special issues of journals-he gave an example of a journal dealing with autism spectrum disorder. The statutory declaration describes the business as an open access publisher. The Tribunal accepts that the business is an open access publishing business.

23. The primary applicant provided evidence as to how the publication process works as follows; researchers or academics submit articles online and the business facilitates the automatic transfer of articles to the editor-in-chief of the particular journal. That person is responsible for determining who will peer review the article. When the article is accepted it is referred back to the business which arranges for it to be printed in Australia, which includes the formatting of the article and it then appears online. It can be ordered online. The business can also arrange for printing of the journals.

24. In his oral evidence, Mr Ahmad indicated that his business is not just a business but “an idea”.

    Partnership with Researchers and Scientific Institutes/Collaboration with researchers

25. In relation to paragraph seven on page four of the statutory declaration, Mr Ahmad referred to his vision when he set up Science Publications in Australia, to partner with researchers and scientific institutes … “to enable a realisation of the full potential of their contents in the digital environment”. The Tribunal explored what partnership with researchers and scientific institutes involved. Mr Ahmad indicated that it involved inviting the articles and expediting the publication process. He indicated the business could then provide the services at a low cost including reprints, copies of journals and subscriptions.

26. In relation to paragraph seven on page eight of the statutory declaration, the Tribunal asked what was involved in the company “collaborating with hundreds of researchers”. Mr Ahmad indicated that this was asking them to join editorial boards as members or act as guest editors of the journals or as author of articles that were published.

    Sources of Revenue of Business

27. In relation to paragraph number two on page seven of the declaration, the Tribunal canvassed with Mr Ahmad about the sources of revenue of the business. Mr Ahmad indicated that once the article is submitted and accepted, the business sends an invoice for article processing charges. He explained that different journals have different costs but that the charge was US$525. In relation to the other aspect of the business which is subscriptions, he indicated that libraries or individuals order books and journals and they were charged $500 per copy. There were options of other reprints being obtained. He said he had libraries such as the British Library purchasing the journals. When asked to describe what percentage of the business was article processing charges and what percentage was subscription, he indicated that it was about “50/50”. He indicated that the printing was all carried out in Australia.

    Revenue and Business Performance

28. In relation to the revenue of the business, the Tribunal asked Mr Ahmad to describe what was “export revenue” set out in paragraph one on page seven of his statutory declaration. He indicated that most of the clients of the business were overseas. He gave examples of clients from Malaysia, India, Indonesia, China and Jordan. Money is received from these clients. He indicated that of the approximately 10,000 articles received, approximately 500 would be from Australian authors.

29. The Tribunal referred to the business performance throughout the years, set out in paragraph one on page seven of his statutory declaration, and raised with the primary applicant the fact that the income had been reducing. The final entry for the period April to June 2015 shows export revenue of $14,299. This has been reducing from $232,229 for the period October to December 2013. By way of explanation Mr Ahmad indicated that the income generation is dependent on his time. He said that he has spent considerable time on his migration application and he asserted that the evidence indicated that when he was able to spend more time on the business the income of the business would increase.

30. The Tribunal also referred to accounts of the business which were for the year ended 28 February 2014[6] which showed incomes sales of $728,752. An item showed that this amount was reduced by cost of goods sold which included “purchases” of $498,170. This large deduction meant that there was a gross profit from trading of $246,082, before other expenses of the business were taken into account. The Tribunal asked what comprised the purchases. Mr Ahmad indicated that the company also sold other publications and gave an example of having organised a conference in China and so most of the income was paid to his business but the Tribunal concluded that he then paid expenses to other people or businesses. The Tribunal noted that this was a considerable proportion of his total income. He indicated that that varied a lot and on occasions might not be a great amount.

    Matters put pursuant to section 359AA of the Act

    [6] At folio 84 of part five of the departmental file

31. At hearing the Tribunal two different lots of information were put pursuant to Section 359AA of the Act.

32. The Tribunal put to Mr Ahmad the following information:

    ·     information from a site which is called “Scholarly Open Access: List of Publishers: Beall’s List” which is headed; “Potential, possible, or probable predatory scholarly open access publishers”.

33. The further information given from the article is as follows;

    ·     “This is a list of questionable, scholarly open-access publishers. We recommend that scholars read the available reviews, assessments and descriptions provided here and then decide for themselves whether they want to submit articles, serve as editors or on editorial boards.”

    ·     The Tribunal noted that it does not indicate who provided the information but understands it is someone called Jeffrey Beall.

    ·     “We emphasize that journal publishers in journals change in their business and editorial practices over time. This list is kept up-to-date to the best extent possible but may not reflect sudden, unreported, or unknown enhancements.”

    ·     On the list is “Science Publications ( site indicates that it was last updated on 27 October 2015.

    ·     The site indicates, “If you are a publisher and would like to appeal your firm’s inclusion on the list, please go here [an http address is given]”

34. Mr Ahmad indicated that he was aware he was on the list. In response to the information provided the representative referred me to an article called “The Conversation” dated 19 October 2015 by Virginia Barbour from Australian National University. The representative indicated that the publishing industry is a lucrative industry and suggesting that they are against open-access publishers and most on the list are open-access publishers. The Tribunal granted further time to provide a response or comment on this information following the hearing.

35. The other information put pursuant to section 359AA of the Act is as follows:

36. In accessing the Directory of Open Access Journals [DOAJ] list of Publisher Members [of the day before the hearing] Science Publications is not listed there as a Publisher Member.

37. It is relevant because it differs to response given by Mr Ahmad. He had indicated that he was a Publisher Member when asked whether he was a member of the association. The Tribunal had asked whether he was a Publisher Member and he indicated that he was.

38. Mr Ahmad elected to give a response at the hearing and also asked for further time to respond which was granted. At hearing Mr Ahmad indicated, in relation to DOAJ that he had misunderstood the question and that “[his] contents” were available on the site. He referred specifically to the Journal of Computer Science which he said is referred to on the DOAJ site. He said that that the DOAJ had recently reshuffled their Board and that there were charges associated with that and he had not applied to be listed. However he had reiterated that his “contents” were available on the site. The representative also asked for further time to respond which was granted.

    Response to section 359AA –provided following the hearing.

39. The Tribunal received a great deal of documents following the hearing[7].

    [7] Documents at Green tags 47-65 on the Tribunal file

40. The applicant provided many different articles relating to open-access publishing and Beall’s list.[8] The Tribunal accepts that there are those who do not support Beall and his views[9] . In the final analysis, and having regard to the response by the primary applicant, the Tribunal does not place any weight on the inclusion of Science Publications on Beall’s List in reaching its conclusion. The Tribunal also does not place any weight on the matters put to Mr Ahmad pursuant to section 359AA of the Act relating to the issue of a publisher member of DOAJ.

    The written submissions

    [8] In the documentation supplied following the hearing

    [9] Article at green tag 51 on Tribunal file, “Cites and Insights”, Ethics and Access1: The sad case of Jeffrey Beall” by Walt Crawford and also an article by the same author called “Journals, ‘Journals’ and Wannabes: Investigating The List” at green tag 57; at green tag 47 “Blacklists, whitelists, and other defences against predatory publishers”

41. The Tribunal has had regard to the representative’s written submissions dated 26 October 2015 and submitted prior to the hearing[10]. The Tribunal also had regard to the further submissions of the primary applicant supplied following the hearing.

    [10] Green tag 44 on the Tribunal file

42. The Tribunal has taken into account all the matters recounted in the 20 paragraphs of the representative’s written submissions. In particular it notes the following matters summarised and drawn from the written submissions:

    ·     The fact that none of the applicants for the subclass 892 visa had any knowledge of the falsity of the bogus police certificate might be considered a “compassionate” matter which might of itself amount to a “compelling factor.” [paragraph 11]

    ·     When the review applicant commenced the business in the USA in 2004 he was a pioneer in the field of open access sites publishing and is an acknowledged leader internationally in this movement. This has continued since he was sponsored and relocated to South Australia from early 2012. [paragraph 13]

    ·     It is strongly submitted that Science Publications, which the review applicant is the founder and prime mover, is a business of significant benefit to Australia’s interests in the promotion and dissemination of scientific knowledge to researchers and academics, both in Australia and internationally. [paragraph 15]

    ·     Considerable reliance upon establishing the claims of the review applicant of the very significant worth of the business and contribution to the interests of Australia, both directly locally and internationally through enhancement of its prestige in the world scientific community, is placed upon the letters of support obtained by the review applicant from local and international well-regarded scientists/researchers and academics. It is submitted that many senior persons of repute have served as members of editorial boards of the publications, thus confirming the review applicant’s claims about the perceived worth of Science Publications in their work. It is further submitted that all who appended their names to the letters of support did so enthusiastically and without reserve. The researchers and academics all attest to the desire that the business continue in Australia, its worth in the introduction of new research ideas and methods to Australian scientists and to the quality of the publications and their worth to the Australian and international scientific and research communities.[paragraph 16]

    ·     The business has published about 10,000 research/review articles with a total of 13 million viewers, with the Australasian region accounting for a significant portion of the viewership and website traffic. As the review applicant deposes most of the journals are included in SCOPUS, the largest abstract and citation and database of peer reviewed literature, as well as a number of other indexing and abstracting providers. The review applicant notes that manuscripts published in Science Publications have been cited 14,268 times between July 2009 and October 2015. [paragraph 17]

    ·     The South Australian government remains a strong sponsor of the business is continuing in South Australia. The submissions refer to a letter dated 20 October 2015 by the manager of Business Migration of Immigration SA on behalf of the government of South Australia. [paragraph 18]

    ·     An example of the worth of the business to the Australian and South Australian community is its organisation and hosting of the international conference on Computational and Network Technologies at the University of SA in 2013. The business is well placed to grow and expand its operations in the future in Australia since, as the review applicant notes, “there are no other STM publishers in the region”. Reference is made to a letter dated 19 October 2015, from Mr Nair of Nazron Accounting, which it is submitted confirms the strength and growth potential of the business and its role as a ‘useful addition to the local economy’. [paragraph 19]

    ·     The representative concludes that as a result of the totality of supporting material it is strongly submitted that Australia would lose out in a significant sector of society and industry if the visa applications are rejected. It is submitted that the benefits to Australia have already been significant and Australia’s business, economic and cultural development will be the losers if the visas are rejected and the persons responsible for this unique and important venture are unable to continue to operate and develop the business in Australia. It is submitted that the evidence clearly demonstrates that there is a very powerful case for the exercise of the discretion to grant the waiver due to the range of factors dealt with in the material provided that forcefully point to the existence of compelling circumstances. [paragraph 20]

    Consideration

1. Mr Ahmad indicated that it would take time to build up the business over decades. He said he felt that there was a vacuum in Australia and that was good for Australia to have these academic services and that there were no other publishers of this type in Australia. He indicated that research work was being conducted in Australia so why not an Australian company to be involved in the publications. He also mentioned that if he organises a conference which he has done then it is image building for the applicant in the academic and research community.

2. The Tribunal raised the issue that if the company was not in Australia researchers and academics would arrange for their work to be published in journals.

3. The Tribunal has taken account of the fact that the application has been supported by the State Government Department of State Development[11]. The Tribunal is also mindful of various letters of support sent by numerous people from all over the world. However the letters were sent following an email from, or on behalf of, the business and with sample letters attached. The letters vary but the Tribunal gives very limited weight to them. Whilst the letters are “in strong support of allowing Science Publication to continue its business” in South Australia or Australia, the rest of the content of the letter is unclear as to the basis of the assertions. An example is from a person in Yunnan University in China[12]. The letter makes statements such as author believes Science Publications can “help introduce new research ideas and methods to Australian scientists in a variety of different scientific fields”. It comments that they have published “top quality research” over the years. It also comments that Science Publications has been “working hard to collaborate with Australian researchers and over the years they have started gaining more members from the region” and they look forward to “seeing more Australian research in the upcoming years”.

   [11] Green tag 15 on the Tribunal file

   [12] Green tag 16 on the Tribunal file

4. In addition, it is not apparent to the Tribunal that the authors were aware that the letters were to be used for immigration purposes. In relation to one of the letters, the Tribunal notes the email which prompted the letter.  In an email to Dr Dale Robert Nyholt, the primary applicant says,

   “As you might be aware, Science Publications has been operating an Editorial Office in Australia since 2010 and its service contract is nearing its expiration. Our Australian Office has proved to be beneficial to promote our products in the Australasian region and would like it to continue.

   In order to do so, we require your favourable recommendation letters to be submitted to our Head Office. I have attached a sample recommendation letter for your convenience.

   I would appreciate it if you could send us a custom recommendation letter on your official institutional letterhead within 5-7 working days so that we may forward it for further consideration”[13].

   [13] Green tag 18 on the Tribunal file

   Conclusion

5. In summary, the Tribunal accepts that an open-access publishing business is being undertaken in Australia by Mr Ahmad and that Mr Ahmad employs, or has employed, a number of people in the business in an administrative capacity to assist with duties such as answering the phone, formatting articles, responding to emails, sending flyers and general customer support.

6. The Tribunal accepts that this business would allow some local contact between researchers and Mr Ahmad but the Tribunal also notes that the majority of Mr Ahmad’s clients are overseas and most of the journals appeared to be overseas journals.

7. A great deal of documentation was supplied to the Tribunal, including statistics via Google Analytics and documentation from various academics from around the world. However, based on the evidence before it, the Tribunal is not persuaded that the circumstances amount to “compelling circumstances that affect the interests of Australia.” The Tribunal does not find the circumstances “compelling” and it is not satisfied that the circumstances “affect the interests of Australia”.

8. The Tribunal is not satisfied that the benefits to Australia have been significant as submitted on behalf of the applicants[14]. The Tribunal notes although that similar terminology is referred to in the PAM policy that is not the wording of PIC4020(4)(a). The Tribunal has considered all the circumstances, not constrained by the policy, to determine whether PIC4020(4)(a) is satisfied. The Tribunal has not relied on the Section 359AA information in reaching its decision, in light of the responses provided by the primary applicant.

   [14] Page 8 of written submissions at green tag 44

9. Therefore the requirements of cl.4020(1) should not be waived.

10. On the basis of the above, the first named applicant does not satisfy PIC 4020 for the purposes of cl.892.223.

11. The other subclasses of this visa also each require that PIC 4020 is satisfied, so the first-named applicant does not satisfy the requirements for any of the other visa subclasses-namely 890, 891 or 893.

12. The secondary applicants depend on the primary applicant satisfying the requirements and being granted a visa. As the first-named applicant has been refused a visa and the Tribunal has affirmed this decision, the decisions to refuse the secondary applicants subclass 892 visas must also be affirmed.

    Decision

    The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicants Business Skills (Residence) (Class DF) visas.

    Sue Raymond
    Senior Member

    ANNEXURE

    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. 

    …

    PAM Policy

    Migration > 2016 > 01/01/2016 - > P. 01/01/2016 - > PAM3 - MIGRATION REGULATIONS - SCHEDULES > PAM - Sch4 - 4020 - The integrity PIC

    Compelling circumstances affecting the interests of Australia

    PIC 4020(4)(a)

    There may be compelling circumstances affecting the interests of Australia if: 

    ·                Australia’s trade or business opportunities would be adversely affected were the person not granted the visa (Note: under policy, gaining employer sponsorship is not considered sufficient grounds for a waiver)

    ·                Australia’s relationship with a foreign government would be damaged if the person is not granted the visa or

    ·                Australia would miss out on a significant benefit that the person could contribute to Australia’s business, economic, cultural or other development (for example, a special skill that is highly sought after in Australia) if the person was not granted the visa. 

    It is departmental policy that compelling circumstances affecting the interests of Australia would not include circumstances where the applicant merely claims that, if granted the visa, they would:

    ·                work and pay taxes in Australia

    ·                pay fees to an education provider or

    ·                spend money in Australia.