1804819 (Migration)

This matter concerned a review by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal of a decision not to grant the applicant a Subclass 117 (Orphan Relative) visa. The central dispute revolved around whether the applicant had provided a "bogus document" or "information that is false or misleading in a material particular" in relation to their visa application, thereby engaging Public Interest Criterion (PIC) 4020.

The Tribunal was required to determine if the applicant had failed to meet the requirements of PIC 4020, specifically subclauses (1) and (2A), which relate to the provision of bogus documents or false/misleading information, and the satisfaction of identity requirements, respectively. The Tribunal also considered whether any compelling or compassionate circumstances existed that would justify a waiver of the PIC 4020(1) and (2) requirements, noting that such a waiver does not extend to the identity requirements under PIC 4020(2A) and (2B).

The Tribunal reasoned that the definition of a "bogus document" does not require the false or misleading statement to be relevant to a criterion for the grant of the visa, citing relevant case law. It further noted that PIC 4020 applies regardless of whether the applicant was aware the document or information was false or misleading, although an element of fraud or deception by some person is necessary for the provision to be engaged. In this instance, the Tribunal concluded that the applicant did not meet PIC 4020(1) and, consequently, the criteria for the grant of the Subclass 117 visa were not met.

The Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicant the Child (Migrant) (Class AH) visa.