2110447 (Migration)

[2022] AATA 4224

2110447 (Migration) [2022] AATA 4224 (11 October 2022)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

REPRESENTATIVE:  Ms Yu Liu (MARN: 2217727)

CASE NUMBER:  2110447

MEMBER:Melissa McAdam

DATE:11 October 2022

PLACE OF DECISION:  Sydney

DECISION:The Tribunal remits the application for a Working Holiday (Temporary) (Class TZ) visa for reconsideration, with the direction that the applicant meets the following criteria for a Subclass 417 (Working Holiday) visa:

·Public Interest Criterion 4020 for the purposes of cl 417.222 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations

Statement made on 11 October 2022 at 4:44pm

CATCHWORDS

MIGRATION – Working Holiday (Temporary) (Class TZ) visa – Subclass 417 (Working Holiday) – false or misleading information in the visa application – specified work in regional Australia – incorrect Employer ID provided – impact of the COVID19 pandemic – mental health issues – borders closures – compassionate or compelling circumstances affecting the interests of Australia – impact on the employer – decision under review remitted

LEGISLATION

Migration Act 1958, ss 5, 65
Migration Regulations 1994, Schedule 2, cls 417.211, 417.222; Schedule 4, Public Interest Criterion 4020; r 1.03

CASES

Arora v MIBP [2016] FCAFC 35
Batra v MIAC [2013] FCA 274
Kaur v MIBP [2017] FCAFC 184

Plaintiff M64/2015 v MIBP [2015] HCA 50
Trivedi v MIBP [2014] FCAFC 42

Any references appearing in square brackets indicate that information has been omitted from this decision pursuant to section 378 of the Migration Act 1958 and replaced with generic information.

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 Home Affairs on 4 August 2021 to refuse to grant the applicant a Working Holiday (Temporary) (Class TZ) visa under s 65 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (the Act).

2. The applicant applied for the visa on 23 December 2020. The delegate refused to grant the visa on the basis that the applicant did not satisfy the requirements of cl 417.222 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth) (the Regulations) because the delegate was satisfied the applicant did not meet Public Interest Criterion (PIC) 4020(1).

3. The applicant was represented in relation to the review.

   Background

4. The applicant applied for the Working Holiday (Temporary) (Class TZ) (subclass 417) visa while holding a second subclass 417 visa. In her visa application, the applicant declared that she undertook specified work in the agriculture industry with [Employer 1] from 2 March 2020 to 11 September 2020 in [a] regional postcode area.

5. In support of her visa application, the applicant provided the Department with:

   a.A copy of her Canadian passport.

   b.A screenshot of the her bank account balance.

   c.28 weekly payslips from [Employer 1] for work completed as a ‘Farm Labourer – Level 1A’ at $19.49.00 per hour.

6. Checks carried out by the Department indicated the specified work carried out by the applicant may be false or misleading because [Employer 1] advised that the employer ID cited by the applicant belonged to someone else. On 15 March 2021, the Department wrote to the applicant and invited her to comment on this information within 28 days.

7. At the time of the delegate’s decision, the Department had not received a response. Consequently, the delegate was not satisfied the applicant met PIC 4020(1) and therefore, cl 417.222.

   Tribunal Application

8. The applicant applied to the Tribunal on 13 August 2021 for a review of the delegate’s decision.

   Pre-Hearing Submissions

9. On 23 September 2022 the applicant’s representative provided the following written materials to the Tribunal:

   -The representative’s submissions.

   -A character reference from the Managing Director of the applicant’s current employer, detailing that it would be a loss for the company if she had to leave her employment.

   -A character reference from the applicant’s former work supervisor at [Employer 2].

   -A letter from the applicant’s de facto partner, who is a [Country 1] citizen living with the applicant in Sydney. He writes about the applicant looking for regional work and how Covid became a big obstacle; and that the applicant’s mental state deteriorated significantly; that she faced harassment organised by her mother; and that it was out of character for the applicant to not follow the rules.

   -A letter from the applicant’s friend, [named], who is an Australian citizen and who writes about the applicant’s troubled family past and the importance of the applicant in her life.

   -A letter from a veterinary clinic veterinarian detailing how the applicant found a stray cat and attended to the cat’s necessary veterinary requirements and agreed to adopt the cat in a commendable way.

   -A character reference letter from the applicant’s friend [Friend A] who writes the applicant is a supportive friend and has donated items to [Friend A’s] employer, a care provider.

   -A letter from the CEO of the applicant’s counselling organisation, regarding her mental health and growth and stating that the applicant has referred others to workshops and programs.

   -A Statutory Declaration from the applicant.

10. In the applicant’s Statutory Declaration she outlines the following:

    … I came to Australia with a Working Holiday (subclass 417) visa in November 2018.

    I found regional work at [Employer 3] in [Town 1] OLD in July 2019 and worked there for 3 months. I met my current partner [Partner A] there. [Partner A] is a [Country 1] citizen and held a working holiday visa.

    I applied for my 2^nd working holiday visa which was granted on 19 December 2019. [Partner A] and I later moved to Sydney NSW.

    Covid-19 pandemic started in March 2020 and I had difficulty finding regional work to satisfy the requirements for my 3^rd working holiday visa application.

    I provided false information and applied for my 3^rd working holiday visa on 23 December 2020, it was refused on 4 August 2021.

    …

    In Canada I was never exposed to an easy life. As a child, I lived with my mother who suffered from alcohol and drug addiction. She was in and out of the house never providing me the love, support, and care a young child needs. When I was in school, child services were called multiple times due to neglect. At a very young age, around 11 years old my mother left.

    After my mother left, my father took full custody, despite the fact my father also suffered from alcohol addiction. My father's drinking was a problem for years, he always had male friends over who were also very intoxicated, and I never felt safe. At a very young age, I decided I wanted a better life for myself and moved in with my father's brother and his wife.

    In high school, I worked very hard to maintain good grades and eventually made it into [a named] University located in [Quebec]. With grants from my high school and a student loan, I made that possible. I finished 4 years of study and achieved a [qualification] in [year].

    Following my study, I moved across the country to [British Columbia] and was soon in a relationship where I was physically and emotionally abused. I understood my worth and left immediately.

    I want to explore the world while I am still young and have opportunities. I was interested in Australia so I applied for a working holiday visa 417 and came here in November 2018.

    I was staying with friends and I quickly realized Australia is an amazing place to experience, where I feel most safe and at home. Knowing this I started to look for farm work so I could apply for my second working holiday visa. From word of mouth. I found a spot at [Employer 3] in [Town 1] QLD in July 2019.

    I was working at [that employer] doing general labour assisting with maintenance and construction of [renovations]. I assisted an onsite builder, painter, and other trade qualified staff.

    While I was completing my regional work, I met my current partner [Partner A] who is a [Country 1] citizen.

    [Partner A] arrived in Australia [in] May 2019 on a working holiday visa and was in [Town 1] QLD completing his regional [work]. After completing his 3 months of farm work he applied for his second working holiday visa. [Partner A] and I have now been together for 3 years and have lived together since July 2019.

    After completing farm work, I went back to Canada for 2 months as there was many family issues during this time. My mother had gotten in contact with my family, expressed her ties with dangerous gangs, that her partner was in prison and that my aunt and uncle whom I previously lived with were speaking of divorce. With everything going on, I was definitely looking forward to going back to Australia, continuing to explore the country, and developing the relationship further with [Partner A].

    On November 17^th 2019 I applied for my second working holiday visa and returned to Australia with my visa being granted on December 19^th 2019.

    Following my return [Partner A] and I moved to Sydney and I began looking for employment. [Partner A] got a job as a Labourer in January 2020 and on March 2^nd 2020 I found employment as a customer service agent at [Employer 2]in [NSW].

    During this time COVID-19 became known, I knew if I wanted to remain in Australia, I would need to find regional work to complete my 6 months to apply for my 3^rd working holiday visa. I began to contact friends and enquire about farm work from March to May 2020. Although, this was the time when people were terrified, weren't fully educated on the virus, and were extremely cautious.

    From March 2020, the state and territory borders closed with mandatory quarantine and passenger declaration. Despite attempting contact with several farms in different states, they would not consider me, as I was living in Greater Sydney, and this was considered an infected area at the time. It also made it more difficult because I was overseas in Canada in December 2019 which made me undesirable as the farms knew how extreme the cases and the pandemic was in Canada and dismissed me immediately.

    I contacted:

    [names and addresses of 6 employers]

    Additionally, at this time Australia's borders had closed and international flights had ceased to Canada, leaving me with limited options. I worked for [Employer 2] until August 21^st 2020, and during this time I was able to work from home.

    I continued looking for jobs in regional areas during the time I worked for [Employer 2], but had no successful outcome. I also looked for jobs in Sydney as we were short in finance with [Partner A’s] income and my 6 months with [Employer 2] was coming to an end.

    On August 28^th 2020, I was offered a position as a customer relations manager at [Employer 4]. [Details deleted].

    [Details of Employer 4 business deleted.] This role requires me to have extensive knowledge of the Australian workforce and government requirements.

    [Details of Employer 4 business deleted.] I'm lucky to be in a role where I can help to make positive changes to economic co-operation and development.

    I am proud of my work and the way I can contribute the Australian economy.

    With Covid becoming worse and worse, and cases rising by the day, there was no way for me to leave the state and I was running out of time to find regional work. I had rung up to 10 different farms, where I either got no response or was turned down. This was incredibly stressful.

    The thought of going home terrified me as the COVID cases in Canada were extremely high and Australia was a much safer place to stay. Also, the thought of having to leave [Partner A] was heartbreaking.

    My anxiety was exacerbated by worry about COIVD-19 and not having a chance to find a reginal work. I was panicked and could not find a way out and that's when someone advised me to submit fraudulent documentation that I completed my 6 months of regional work. When this was first mentioned I immediately dismissed the idea. I knew it would be completely out of character and something I could never see myself following through with.

    In December 2020 it would be difficult to return to Canada, I was scared of the infection of COVID, and I was running out of time to find a regional work. So with 9 days before my 2nd working holiday visa expired (December 31^st, 2020) I panicked and eventually submitted my visa application for my 3^rd year working holiday on December 23^rd 2020. The same day I was granted a bridging visa A.

    Immediately after applying for my visa, I felt an insane amount of regret, panic, and despair. I had trouble sleeping, suffered from countless panic attacks, my mental health decreased by the day and I kept what I did to myself from the amount of shame I felt. At no point did I want to cut corners to get out of regional work. My experience on the farm in 2019 was one of the best experiences of my life. I did work I never realized I was capable of, I learned a lot about myself, ii introduced me to all my friends I now consider the best family I've ever had and most importantly I met the most amazing partner. I could not imagine leaving my friends and especially [Partner A].

    What I did is no reflection of my character. Despite a major mistake in my life I know I am a strong, loving, honest, and hardworking woman. I know if I was not in fight or flight mode I would have never made that irrational, consequential decision. I completely acknowledge what I have done, I understand how serious the offense is and I would never put myself in that position again.

    During the period of waiting for my visa response I continued to work at [Employer 4]. I put all my energy into bettering myself and my mental health. I started seeing a health and wellness coach, inspired others to do the same, started giving back to the community. I found a place to call home with [Partner A], and fostered a cat that desperately needed a home.

    On August 4^th 2021 I received the refusal for my 3^rd working holiday visa. When I received this news, my heart sank but I knew my actions were not a representation of who I am as a person and without hesitation, I contacted [Agency 1] for assistance. I explained what had happened and questioned what options I had.

    During this time the relationship between [Partner A] and I was developing well and he was employed as a site foreman and was offered sponsorship. [Partner A] never accepted this offer as he did not want to commit to employment in Australia for four years if I could potentially be asked to leave the country. When [Partner A] made that decision, it broke my heart as I know how much he loves his job, how much his employer needs him and how excited he was being offered this opportunity.

    My plans are to stay in Australia temporarily, grow my relationship with [Partner A], and for us both to continue our employment with companies who have expressed their desire and need for individuals with our experience and worth ethic. We have both been a great contribution to the Australian economy and I hope to continue this as opposed to having my visa refused and banned to come back here for several years.

    My character, education, and work experience would not make it difficult to find employment in Canada, but I hope I can continue to contribute to the Australian economy for a bit longer as I don't want to live separately with [Partner A].

    Considering my past and its hardships I had two options, go down a path similar to my parents or become a strong and successful contributor to my community. I choose the second option and I hope you see this through my letter and my supporting references. In addition, I hope you understand the difficult circumstances I was in and why I made such a poor decision. That this mistake does not reflect my character, and I very much regret it.

    Tribunal Hearing

11. The applicant appeared before the Tribunal on 28 September 2022 to give evidence and present arguments. The following is a summary of the information provided by the applicant at the hearing:

    a.The applicant acknowledged that she did provide false and misleading documents and information in her third Working Holiday visa application.

    b.She did not return to Canada at the time because being in Australia meant a lot to her.  Her partner lives here and she did not want to leave him.  Also the Covid situation in Canada was much worse than in Australia.  Flights to Canada were costing about $10,000 and she could not afford this. International flights were also being frequently cancelled so that her successful return to Canada in the short term was unlikely.  If she had made it back to Canada she would have struggled finding employment because of the pandemic there.

    c.She returned to Canada for two months in 2019 because she was concerned for her cousins who were like siblings to her. She had grown up with them and they begged her to return because their parents were divorcing and the applicant’s mother had reappeared in their loves and was causing trouble.

    d.Her partner in Australia is on a ‘Covid visa’.  His workplace here has offered to sponsor him for one or two years’ work but he is unsure whether to accept the offer while the applicant’s status is uncertain.  They have been together for three years now and hope to build a family together one day.

    e.If the PIC 4020 criteria is waived the applicant hopes to apply for a working holiday visa again as it will no longer be subject to a requirement to have completed six months of specified work.

    consideration of claims and evidence

12. The issue in this review is whether the visa applicant meets Public Interest Criterion 4020 (PIC 4020) as required by cl 417.222 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: PIC 4020(1); and

    ·the applicant and each member of the family unit has not been refused a visa because of a failure to satisfy PIC 4020(1) during the period starting 3 years before the application was made and ending when the visa is granted or refused, unless the applicant was under 18 at the time the application for the refused visa was made: PIC 4020(2) and (2AA); and

    ·the applicant satisfies the Minister as to his or her identity: PIC 4020(2A); and

    ·neither the applicant nor any family unit member has been refused a visa because of a failure to satisfy PIC 4020(2A) during the period starting 10 years before the application was made and ending when the visa is granted or refused, unless the applicant was under 18 at the time the application for the refused visa was made: PIC 4020(2B) and (2BA).

13. 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: PIC 4020(4). However, this waiver does not apply to the identity requirements in PIC 4020(2A) and (2B). PIC 4020 is extracted in the attachment 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?

14. The term ‘information that is false or misleading in a material particular’ is defined in PIC 4020(5) and the term ‘bogus document’ is defined in s 5(1) of the Act (see the attachment to this decision). In contrast to the definition of ‘information that is false or misleading in a material particular’ in PIC 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: Arora v MIBP [2016] FCAFC 35; Batra v MIAC [2013] FCA 274.

1. The requirement in PIC 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: PIC 4020(3). It also applies whether or not the document or information was provided by the applicant knowingly or unwittingly.

2. While PIC 4020 refers to information that is false, in the sense of purposely untrue, it is not necessary for the Minister (or the Tribunal on review) to conclude that the applicant was aware the information was purposely untrue in order for PIC 4020 to be engaged. However, an element of fraud or deception by some person is necessary to attract the operation of the provision: Trivedi v MIBP [2014] FCAFC 42.

3. The Tribunal considers information provided by the applicant in relation to ‘specified work’ undertaken by her in ‘regional Australia’ to be material particulars as it relates to whether she meets the requirements of cl.417.211(5) for the grant of the third subclass 417 Working Holiday visa.

4. The applicant has confirmed that the information provided with her third subclass 417 visa application, regarding the completion of specified work in regional Australia, was false and the documents were bogus.  On the evidence before it the Tribunal is satisfied that the information and documents that the applicant had completed specified work [Employer 1] are false and misleading, and bogus, respectively.  The Tribunal considers that the applicant knowingly, or with reckless disregard of the truth, provided the false and misleading information and bogus documents to the Department.

5. The Tribunal finds that this information given by the applicant to the Department in her application for a third subclass 417 Working Holiday visa was false and the documents bogus, at the time it was given and was relevant to cl.417.211(5) which requires that the applicant had carried out a period or periods of specified work in regional Australia as the holder of a second subclass 417 Working Holiday visa and the total period or periods of work carried out was at least 6 months and she was remunerated for the work in accordance with relevant Australian legislation and awards.  Accordingly, the Tribunal finds that this information was false or misleading and the documents were bogus in a material particular.

6. Therefore, the applicant does not meet PIC 4020(1).

   Should the requirements of PIC 4020(1) be waived?

7. The requirements of PIC 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 reg 1.03), that justify the granting of the visa. The decision-maker must first be satisfied that there are such circumstances, then must consider whether to exercise the discretion to waive the requirements, having regard to those circumstances: Kaur v MIBP [2017] FCAFC 184.

8. The expressions ‘compelling circumstances’ and ‘compassionate or compelling circumstances’ are not defined for these purposes. To be compelling, the circumstances must force or drive the decision-maker irresistibly to be satisfied: see Plaintiff M64/2015 v MIBP [2015] HCA 50. The ordinary meaning of ‘compassionate’ relates to feelings of sympathy, sorrow, pity or concern for others.

9. The waiver provision in PIC 4020(4) is specifically confined to compelling circumstances affecting the interests of Australia, and/or compassionate or compelling circumstances affecting the interests of an Australian citizen or permanent resident or an eligible New Zealand citizen.

   Compelling circumstances affecting the interests of Australia

10. In this matter, circumstances affecting the interests of Australia, can be summarised as follows:

    -The applicant's employment with an Australian business, [Employer 4].

    -The applicant’s partner’s employment with an Australian company.

    -The applicant’s intention to apply for a further working holiday visa.

11. The Tribunal accepts on the evidence before it that the applicant has been employed with [Employer 4] as a Customer Relations Manager.  The company assists people in Australia [to become] eligible for work opportunities in Australia.  The Managing Director of the company has provided evidence that it will be difficult for the company to find a replacement for the applicant and that they would suffer a great loss without her.  He explains the significant difficulties the company will encounter trying to recruit a suitable replacement in the current Australian job market.  He also describes the applicant as a valued employee who contributes a great deal, over and above expectations, to the company.

12. The Tribunal accepts that the work the applicant does for her employer assists [people] to enter the Australian job market.  The Tribunal accepts that with current labour shortages the work she does is of value to Australia, both economically and logistically. The Tribunal also accepts that significant short term detriment will be caused to her employer if they need to find a replacement for her. 

13. The Tribunal accepts the applicant and her partner’s evidence that her partner is employed as a site manager at a [company] and is being offered sponsorship by his employer. The Tribunal accepts the applicant’s partner is deferring his decision whether or not to accept his employer’s offer until the applicant’s status in Australia is more certain. The Tribunal accepts it will cause some difficulty to his employer if the applicant’s partner ceases work with them to accompany the applicant if she has to depart Australia.

14. The Tribunal accepts that the applicant intends to re-apply for a third working holiday visa if the PIC 4020(1) requirement is waived.  She will therefore be able to continue to work in Australia. The Tribunal accepts that it is in Australia’s interests to increase the number of available capable and proven workers at a time when three is a shortage of such workers.

    Compelling or compassionate circumstances affecting the interests of an Australian citizen or permanent resident or an eligible New Zealand citizen.

15. A close friend of the applicant who is an Australian citizen has provided detailed evidence of the strong emotional bond between her and the applicant. The Tribunal accepts that she and the applicant have spent substantial time together since 2016, working, travelling and living together. The Tribunal accepts that she relies heavily on the applicant’s support and friendship. The Tribunal is satisfied that it would cause the applicant’s Australian friend significant emotional distress if the applicant could not obtain a visa and was required to depart Australia.

16. While individually each of the factors set out above do not rise to the level of compelling, the Tribunal is satisfied they do on a cumulative basis.  Having considered the particular circumstances of the applicant’s case on a cumulative basis the Tribunal is satisfied, on balance, that the above factors raise compassionate circumstances that affect the interests of Australian citizens and compelling circumstances affecting the interests of Australia, to and justify the grant of the visa to her.

17. For the above reasons, the Tribunal is satisfied that the requirements of cl.4020(1) should be waived.

    Has the applicant satisfied the identity requirements?

18. PIC 4020(2A) requires an applicant satisfy the Tribunal as to his or her identity.  

19. There is no evidence before the Tribunal to suggest that there is any issue with applicant's identity. Both the Department and the Tribunal have been provided with a copy of the biodata pages of the applicant's passport.  The Tribunal is therefore satisfied the applicant meets PIC 4020(2A).

    Has a visa previously been refused on the basis of a failure to satisfy PIC 4020(2A)?

20. PIC 4020(2B) requires that neither the applicant nor any family unit member have been refused a visa because of a failure to satisfy the identity requirements in PIC 4020(2A) during the period starting 10 years before the application was made and ending when the visa is granted or refused. This requirement does not apply to a person who was under 18 at the time the application for the refused visa was made: PIC 4020(2BA).

21. There is no evidence before the Tribunal to show that the applicant has been refused a visa in the relevant period because of a failure to satisfy PIC 4020(2A).

22. Therefore the Tribunal is satisfied that PIC 4020(2B) is met.

    Conclusion

23. On the basis of the above, the applicant does satisfy PIC 4020 for the purposes of cl 417.222.

    decision

24. The Tribunal remits the application for a Working Holiday (Temporary) (Class TZ) visa for reconsideration, with the direction that the applicant meets the following criteria for a Subclass 417 (Working Holiday) visa:

    ·Public Interest Criterion 4020 for the purposes of cl 417.222 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations

    Melissa McAdam
    Member

    ATTACHMENT

    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 the 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.

    …