1709452 (Migration)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal reviewed a decision concerning three Child (Migrant) (Class AH) visa applications, subclass 117 (Orphan Relative). The review applicant, who claimed to be the paternal uncle of the visa applicants, disputed the primary decision-maker's finding that the applicants had provided bogus documents. The visa applicants had grown up together as siblings in one household.

The central issue before the Tribunal was whether the visa applicants met Public Interest Criterion (PIC) 4020, as required for the grant of the visa. Specifically, the Tribunal had to determine if the applicants had provided a bogus document or false or misleading information in relation to their visa applications, and whether they satisfied the Minister as to their identity. The Tribunal also considered whether there were compelling circumstances that justified waiving the requirement under PIC 4020(1), noting that such a waiver did not extend to identity requirements.

The Tribunal considered documentary evidence, including submissions from the review applicant, a letter from a primary school, and school reports. The review applicant asserted that the visa applicants had been misled into providing counterfeit school transcripts and denied providing fraudulent documents. The Tribunal also noted submissions alleging bias by a departmental contractor and claims of attempted bribery. Crucially, DNA evidence indicated that the review applicant was not the paternal uncle of the three visa applicants.

Given the conflicting evidence and the finding that the review applicant was not the paternal uncle, the Tribunal concluded that the matter should be remitted for reconsideration.