1910318 (Migration)

This matter concerned an appeal by a child visa applicant against the decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (the Tribunal) to affirm the refusal of a Child (Migrant) (Class AH) visa, subclass 101. The central issue revolved around Public Interest Criterion (PIC) 4020, which requires that an applicant has not provided a bogus document or false or misleading information in relation to their visa application or a previous visa. The sponsor, the applicant's mother, had altered a police certificate to conceal serious criminal offences, although this alteration was made for a job application rather than the visa application itself.

The Tribunal was required to determine whether the visa applicant met PIC 4020, specifically whether a bogus document or false or misleading information had been provided in relation to the visa application. The Tribunal also considered whether there were any compassionate or compelling circumstances that would justify waiving the requirements of PIC 4020. The applicant and sponsor were aware of a jail term but not of the specific serious offences or the alteration of the police certificate.

The Tribunal reasoned that the requirement under PIC 4020 applies even if a bogus document or misleading information is provided unwittingly. It found that the sponsor's alteration of the police certificate, even if not for the purpose of the visa application, constituted a failure to meet the criterion. The Tribunal further concluded that there were no compassionate or compelling circumstances that justified waiving this requirement, noting the significant period of separation between the applicant and the sponsor and the sponsor's voluntary decision to live apart from the applicant. Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the visa.