2107289 (Migration)

This matter concerned an application for an Employer Nomination (Permanent) (Class EN) visa, Subclass 186 (Employer Nomination Scheme), by an applicant nominated by [Company 1]. The central dispute revolved around whether the applicant satisfied Public Interest Criterion (PIC) 4020, which requires that an applicant has not provided false or misleading information or bogus documents in relation to a visa application or a previous visa held within the preceding 12 months. The case was heard by R. Skaros, Senior Member, of the Tribunal.

The Tribunal was required to determine whether the applicant had provided, or caused to be provided, a bogus document or information that was false or misleading in a material particular in relation to their visa application or a previous visa. This involved considering the definitions of "bogus document" and "information that is false or misleading in a material particular" under the Migration Regulations 1994 and the Migration Act 1958. The Tribunal also had to assess whether the applicant met the requirements of PIC 4020(1) and (2), and whether any waiver under PIC 4020(4) was applicable, noting that such waivers do not extend to identity requirements under PIC 4020(2A) and (2B).

The Tribunal reasoned that, based on the evidence before it, the applicant satisfied PIC 4020 for the purposes of clause 186.213(1). While the case text indicates that departmental verification checks had found limited independent evidence of employment and that non-compliance was admitted, the Tribunal's conclusion suggests that either the information provided was not considered false or misleading in a material particular, or that the circumstances warranted a waiver. The Tribunal noted that the nomination by [Company 1] was approved and the position remained available, and that recent evidence from the company's executive managers supported the applicant's claims. The Tribunal applied the principles established in cases such as *Arora v MIBP* and *Batra v MIAC* regarding the interpretation of "bogus document" and "information that is false or misleading in a material particular."

Consequently, the Tribunal remitted the applications for Employer Nomination (Permanent) visas for reconsideration, with the direction that the first named applicant meets Public Interest Criterion 4020 for the purposes of clause 186.213(1) of Schedule 2 to the Regulations.