2308179 (Migration) - [2024] AATA 26

2308179 (Migration) [2024] AATA 26 (4 January 2024)
DECISION RECORD
DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division
REPRESENTATIVE:  Miss Olivia Zoe Harms
CASE NUMBER:  2308179
MEMBER:Margie Bourke
DATE:4 January 2024
PLACE OF DECISION:  Melbourne
DECISION:The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicant a Child (Migrant) (Class AH) visa.

Statement made on 04 January 2024 at 11:18am
CATCHWORDS
MIGRATION – Child (Migrant) (Class AH) visa – Subclass 117 (Orphan Relative) – identity requirements – relative of an Australian relative – death of parents – DNA results – legal concept of parentage – decision under review affirmed
LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958, ss 5(1), 65
Migration Regulations 1994, rr 1.03, 1.14; Schedule 2, cls 117.111, 117.211, 117.221, 117.223; Schedule 4, Public Interest Criterion 4020
CASES
Chou v MICMSMA [2021] FCAFC 130
Masson v Parsons [2019] HCA 21
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

This is an application for review of a decision made by a delegate of the Minister for Home Affairs on 4 April 2023 to refuse to grant the applicant a Child (Migrant) (Class AH) visa under s.65 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (the Act).
The applicant applied for the visa on 17 July 2018. The delegate refused to grant the visa on the basis that the applicant did not satisfy the requirements of cl.117.223 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth) (the Regulations) because the visa applicant did not satisfy the identity requirements of PIC 4020(2A).
The review applicant had also applied for review of a decision in relation to visa applicant [Brother A] who had lodged an application for a subclass 117 visa on 17 July 2018, and in relation to whom the Department had refused the application in a decision record dated 4 April 2023, on the basis the visa applicant did not satisfy the identity requirements of PIC 4020(2A). As these matters involve the same review applicant, the same visa subclass, the same issues were identified in the Department’s decision record, and the delegate found they did not meet the same requirements for the grant of the visa, the Tribunal invited the review applicant to advise whether she consented to a combined hearing of both matters. The review applicant consented to a combined hearing.
The review applicant appeared before the Tribunal on 18 December 2023 to give evidence and present arguments. The Tribunal received oral evidence from the visa applicant in this review, and the visa applicant in the combined hearing who both attended by video via the same device from [Country 1]. The Tribunal also received oral evidence from [Ms A] who gave evidence by video from the same device as the visa applicants, from [Country 1]. The Tribunal received evidence from witnesses [Witness A], [Witness B] and [Witness C] who attended the hearing in person. The Tribunal also considered relevant oral evidence from [Sister A] and [Cousin A], who were also visa applicants in relation to subclass 117 visas where [review applicant’s name] was the review applicant, and who gave evidence to the same Tribunal in relation to their reviews earlier in the day. The Tribunal hearing was conducted with the assistance of an interpreter in the Arabic (Sudanese) and English languages.
The review applicant was represented in relation to the review.
For the following reasons, the Tribunal has concluded that the decision under review should be affirmed.
CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE
The Tribunal first considered whether the visa applicants met the requirements of PIC 4020(2A) which was the reason for the Department refusal.
The Tribunal then considered whether the visa applicants met the requirements of cl.117.211, which requires the visa applicants are the orphan relative of an Australian relative at the time of application within the meaning of reg 1.14.
The Tribunal has reached the same conclusion and made partially similarly worded decisions in relation to the two visa applicants in the combined hearing.
Assessment of the identity requirements in PIC 4020(2A)
The issue in this review is whether the visa applicant meets Public Interest Criterion 4020 (PIC 4020)(2A) as required by cl.117.223 for the grant of the visa. Broadly speaking, this requires that:
·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).
PIC 4020(2A) requires an applicant satisfy the Tribunal as to his or her identity. The Tribunal has considered the information contained in the Department’s decision records dated 4 April 2023. The visa applicants claimed their biological father’s name is [Father A]. The visa applicants claim the review applicant is their maternal aunt, and the sister of the father. Both visa applicants also recorded their mother is [Mother A]. The visa applicants were unable to provide birth certificates or other official documents that recorded their parents.
The visa applicant provided a student identification card from his school. This document was the only identification document provided with the visa application to the Department by the visa applicant.
The visa applicant consented to participate in DNA testing to establish evidence of a biological relationship with his father and his aunt. The Tribunal has considered the DNA report dated 21 September 2022, which concludes that the statistical likelihood of the review applicant and the visa applicant being related as biological aunt and nephew, compared to unrelated individuals, was calculated to be 0.009 to 1. The conclusion in the report was that based on the statistical analysis it is unlikely that the review applicant and the visa applicant are related as biological aunt and nephew.
The Department accepted the findings in the DNA report that the visa applicant was not the biological nephew of the review applicant, and therefore also not the biological son of his claimed father, [Father A].
The Department decision that the visa applicant did not satisfy the requirements of PIC 4020(2A) is based on the findings of the DNA report, and the lack of other sufficient identification provided by the applicant.
The review applicant provided the Tribunal with an age assessment certificate issued [in] February 2023 in the name of the visa applicant, signed by a physician and on a Ministry of Health form authorised by the National Medical Commission. This document records the visa applicant’s date of birth and his claimed parents.
The review applicant provided the Tribunal with an emergency travel document dated [in] December 2023 certifying the visa applicant has permission to travel to [Country 1] for a period of three months. The emergency travel document has a photo of the visa applicant. The emergency travel document is issued by the Ministry of the Interior, Directorate of Nationality, Passports and Immigration for the Republic of South Sudan.
The Tribunal has considered the country information, as recorded in DFAT Country Information Report South Sudan, 5 October 2016 which records the prevalence of fraud in documents in South Sudan. However the Tribunal has considered that the visa applicant has provided an emergency travel document that has been issued by the South Sudanese government Ministry of Interior, that permits him to travel out of South Sudan, which effectively acts as a passport. The Tribunal gives this document significant weight as evidence of the visa applicant’s identity.
The Tribunal acknowledges that the DNA report concluded the claimed paternity of the visa applicant was not correct. The Tribunal however is satisfied that the visa applicant has consistently maintained that his identity is [visa applicant’s name], born in [specified year]. The Tribunal is satisfied that the identity of the visa applicant is confirmed by the emergency travel document issued by the Ministry of Interior of the Republic of South Sudan in 2023, and is confirmed by the information recorded on the age assessment certificate also issued in 2023.
The Tribunal is therefore satisfied as to the identity of the visa applicant, and is satisfied that the visa applicant meets the identity requirements of PIC 4020(2A).
Has a visa previously been refused on the basis of a failure to satisfy PIC 4020(2A)?
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).
There is no evidence before the Tribunal that the visa applicant or any family member has previously been refused a visa because of a failure to satisfy the identity requirements in PIC 4020(2A).
Therefore the Tribunal finds that the visa applicant meets the requirements of both PIC 4020(2A) and PIC 4020(2B).
Assessment of the orphan relative definition requirement in reg 1.14
Clause 117.211 requires that at the time of application the visa applicant is an orphan relative of an Australian relative (cl.117.211(a)), or is not an orphan relative only because the applicant has been adopted by an Australian relative (cl.117.211(b)). The visa applicant is required to continue to satisfy the criteria at the time of decision, or not do so only because the visa applicant has turned 18 (cl.117.221).
‘Orphan relative’ is defined in reg 1.14 of the Regulations. An Australian relative is a relative of the visa applicant who is an Australian citizen, an Australian permanent resident, or an eligible New Zealand citizen (cl.117.111). A ‘relative’ means a grandparent, grandchild, aunt, uncle, niece, nephew or a close relative, and a ‘close relative’ means a spouse or de facto partner, child, parent, brother or sister (step relationships are also included), as defined in reg 1.03.
In the present case the [review applicant] is an Australian citizen and claims to be the relevant Australian relative of the visa applicant.
Regulation reg 1.14(a)(iii) requires the visa applicant to be a relative of an Australian citizen, an Australian permanent resident or an eligible New Zealand citizen as defined in reg 1.03. The Tribunal is satisfied that the review applicant is an Australian citizen.
The review applicant and the visa applicant claim that the visa applicant is a relative of his Australian relative within the definition of reg 1.03, and claims he is the nephew of the review applicant.
The Tribunal has considered the DNA report dated 21 September 2022. The Tribunal is satisfied that the visa applicant and the review applicant participated in the DNA testing. The Tribunal is satisfied that the conclusion of the DNA testing is that it is unlikely that the review applicant and the visa applicant are related as biological aunt and nephew. The Tribunal accepts this report, and finds the visa applicant is not the biological nephew of the review applicant. The Tribunal accepts this report and finds the visa applicant is not the biological son of his claimed father [Father A].
The Tribunal has noted that the DNA report dated 21 September 2022 concluded there is a moderately strong support for the proposition that the review applicant and [Sister A] are related as biological aunt and niece. The Tribunal accepts this conclusion. For the sake of clarity in this decision record, I will usually refer to the claimed parents and grandmother of the visa applicant, as the parents and grandmother of [Sister A], as I am satisfied the DNA report confirms this biological relationship.
The Tribunal has considered the written and oral evidence before it. The Tribunal has noted the written and oral evidence provided by the visa applicants in the combined hearing, and the visa applicants [Sister A] and [Cousin A] in the related hearings. The Tribunal is satisfied that all four visa applicants have consistently claimed that the visa applicant [named], the visa applicant in the combined hearing [Brother A], and [Sister A] are siblings, and that [Cousin A] is their cousin. The Tribunal has considered that the four visa applicants have consistently claimed they were brought up together. The Tribunal accepts this evidence.
The visa applicant referred to [Brother A] and [Sister A] as his siblings throughout his evidence. The visa applicant referred to [Father A] as his father throughout his evidence.
The Tribunal has considered the written statements or statutory declarations of the review applicant, [named], the visa applicant in this review, the visa applicant in the combined hearing [Brother A], [Cousin A], [Witness D], [Ms A], [Sister A], [Witness B], [Witness A], [Witness C], and [Witness E]. The Tribunal has considered the oral evidence of the witnesses in the hearing.
The visa applicant in this review told the Tribunal that he was born in [specified year] and at the time of giving evidence is [age] years of age. He told the Tribunal his mother’s name and stated he had not seen her since he was little. The Tribunal accepts that after [Sister A’s] mother left in 2008, [Sister A], the visa applicant and the other children lived with [Sister A’s] paternal grandmother. The visa applicant told the Tribunal that he lived with the grandmother and went to school in Khartoum. The Tribunal is satisfied based on the written and oral evidence before it that [Father A] also resided with his mother ([Sister A’s] grandmother) at that time. The Tribunal accepts the evidence of [Witness B] that when she visited and stayed with [Sister A’s] grandmother in 2009, the visa applicants were living in the home, and [Father A] was also there. The Tribunal is satisfied based on the death certificate provided by the review applicant that [Sister A’s] paternal grandmother passed away [in] October 2010 in [Country 1] at the [named] Medical Centre.
The visa applicant stated that his grandmother died, and he and the other children went to live with [Aunt A]. The Tribunal is satisfied based on written and oral evidence before it that [Aunt A] is the mother of [Cousin A], and also the aunt of [Sister A]. The visa applicant stated that he lived with [Aunt A] until she died. The Tribunal is satisfied based on the written and oral evidence before it, that [Aunt A] and her husband were killed in the civil war in December 2013. The Tribunal is satisfied based on the evidence before it that [Father A] did not reside with [Aunt A] and her family at the same time as the visa applicant resided with her, from 2010 to 2013. The Tribunal is satisfied based on the statement of [Witness D], that she found the visa applicant with the other children when she returned to [Town 1], South Sudan in 2014 to look for members of her family. The Tribunal is satisfied that the visa applicant and the other children were unaccompanied. The Tribunal accepts that the witness [Witness D] took the children to the United Nations in Khartoum. The Tribunal accepts that the United Nations contacted the review applicant.
The visa applicant stated that after the death of [Aunt A] he lived with his older sister [Sister A] and she took care of them. The Tribunal accepts that [Sister A] was aged [under age] when her aunt [Aunt A] was killed, and she had to look after the other younger children. The visa applicant stated that during this period he did not see his mother. The visa applicant stated during this period he did not see his father. The visa applicant stated he cannot remember when he last saw his father. The visa applicant stated he has no memories of his father. The visa and stated he does not know how old he was when his father died. The visa applicant stated he does not know who he was living with when his father died. The visa applicant stated that he could remember his father looked tall but could not remember anything else about him.
The Tribunal accepts, based on the deceased form provided by the review applicant issued by the Danish Refugee Council, that [Father A] died [in] March 2015.
The visa applicant made a statement provided to the Tribunal by the review applicant dated 11 December 2023 and signed ‘[visa applicant’s name]’. In this statement the visa applicant states at paragraph 8, “I do not know who my biological father is but [Father A] was my dad. He financially supported me and my siblings. He was the one that gave us everything we needed and helped our grandmother raise us. He encouraged me to get an education. He was emotionally supportive, but he still disciplined us. The reason why his name is on my birth certificate is because he is my dad. He would call me “son” in Arabic and always treated me like a son for as long as he was around. He would bring us snacks and would play with us. When he would come back from work (in another city) we would always go to the fair with my siblings, my cousin [Cousin A] and I. When it was Christmas time, he was brought all of us presents and new clothes that we would wear for Christmas church with grandma.”
The visa applicant stated in the hearing he did not sign a statement saying he did not know who his biological father is. The visa applicant stated in the hearing that he had no memories of his father, and could not remember when he last saw his father. The visa applicant stated that his real father, his biological father, is [Father A].
The Tribunal has carefully considered the evidence of the visa applicant. The Tribunal is cognisant of the difficulties for a young person giving evidence by video from another country. The Tribunal did not request that the visa applicant be on his own while giving evidence. The Tribunal requested the other persons in the room be quiet so the visa applicant could focus and not be distracted. The Tribunal is satisfied that the visa applicant answered the questions appropriately and understood the questions asked of him. The Tribunal notes that the visa applicant was able to respond to questions from the Tribunal in detail. The visa applicant stated that he went to the same school, on two occasions and repeated the same grades at the school.
There was an issue in the visa applicant’s evidence about the name of the school he attended that the tribunal has analysed. The visa applicant stated the name of the school was [School 1]. The visa applicant stated in his evidence that this school was in Khartoum in South Sudan. The visa applicant stated he referred to the school in Khartoum as ‘[Word 1]’. The visa applicant stated to the Tribunal that the word “[Word 1]’ did not refer to the location of the school and did not refer to the place [of School 1] in Kampala in [Country 1] where he currently resides but is [a generic name] for school.
The Tribunal understands that the English pronunciation of the Arabic word for school is ‘madrasa’. The Tribunal did not put the difference between the pronunciation of ‘madrasa’ and the pronunciation of ‘[Word 1]’ to the visa applicant in the hearing. The Tribunal is not an expert in the pronunciation of Arabic words. The Tribunal accepts that phonetically the words are similar, and they may have been some misunderstanding in the translation or in the accents or dialects between the visa applicant and the interpreter. The Tribunal accepts the visa applicant was referring to the school he attended, and had reattended and repeated his year level in Khartoum.
The Tribunal accepts that it would be confusing for a person to receive results of a DNA test that indicate his or her understanding of their paternity was not correct. However, scrutiny of the written statement dated 11 December 2023 indicates that the visa applicant accepted the DNA report dated 21 September 2022, and accepted that the review applicant was not his biological aunt and that [Father A] was not his biological father. The statement, as referred to above, provided by the visa applicant, includes content of description by the visa applicant of the relationship between the visa applicant and [Father A].

The Tribunal notes that in his oral evidence the visa applicant stated that he had no memories of his father, and could not remember when he last saw him. The visa applicant stated his only recollection is that his father was tall. The visa applicant gave oral evidence that he did not make a statement saying that [Father A] was not his father or that he did not know who his biological father is. For this reason the Tribunal gives little weight to the statement of the visa applicant dated 11 December 2023.
The Tribunal has considered the oral and written evidence of the other visa applicant in the combined hearing. The review applicant provided a written statement dated 11 December 2023 signed by ‘[Brother A]’ from this visa applicant. In the statement, [Brother A] declares he does not know who his biological father is because his mother went missing shortly after he was born, but that [Father A] was like a father to him. In this written statement he describes [Father A] was like a father to him, including that he called him son using the Arabic word, and provided for him financially and ensured that he had a house to stay in and someone to care for him.
In the hearing [Brother A] stated that he thinks [Father A] is his father. He stated he does not remember either of his parents. He stated he has no memory of his father and no memory of his mother. He stated he does not know who they lived with after their mother left but they now live with his sister [Sister A] in [Country 1]. This witness stated he remembered he went to school in Khartoum and the school was called [Name 1]. The Tribunal is satisfied that the evidence of [Brother A] in the hearing indicated he understood the questions, and gave answers that were appropriate to the questions. The Tribunal has considered and accepts the oral evidence of [Brother A]. For this reason, the Tribunal gives little weight to the statement of this visa applicant dated 11 December 2023.
The Tribunal acknowledges that it is assessing evidence given by young people at a time of civil war, and those young persons have had traumatic experiences in the war. The Tribunal has carefully considered the oral evidence of the visa applicants which is inconsistent with their written evidence provided by the review applicant.
The review applicant stated that the visa applicants were confused when asked about providing their written statements about their father. For this reason, the tribunal has further carefully assessed the written and oral evidence of the visa applicants.
The review applicant stated that they were in shock when advised they were not related to [Father A]. The review applicant stated the visa applicants state that they know that [Father A] is their biological father because they have decided that he is. The Tribunal has carefully considered the review applicant’s submissions after hearing the evidence of the visa applicants. The Tribunal has assessed the evidence of both visa applicants, who not only both declared that [Father A] was their father ([Brother A] stated he thinks [Father A] is his biological father) but that neither of them had any memory or recollection of [Father A]. This oral evidence of no memory of this [Father A] is in direct contradiction to the information contained in the written statements. The Tribunal considers that if the visa applicants were certain that [Father A] is their biological father, this would not impede their evidence including any memory of him in their lives.
The Tribunal has considered the evidence of the review applicant, but does not find that the visa applicants were confused when asked about the written statements that had been provided to the Tribunal. The Tribunal is satisfied that the oral evidence of both visa applicants is the more reliable evidence.
The review applicant’s representative submitted the Tribunal is required to consider the definition of parent as espoused in the High Court judgement of Masson v Parsons [2019] HCA 21, is not limited to a biological parent. The Tribunal accepts this submission. The Tribunal has also considered the discussion of broad legal concept of parentage in the Federal Court of Australia decision of Chou v MICMSMA [2021] FCAFC 130, where the judgement confirms that the meaning of the word ‘parent’ and whether a person qualifies as a ‘parent’ are questions which will be determined in the circumstances of the particular case, and the categories of those circumstances are not closed or exhaustive. Further, the judgement specified that the concept of parentage can include a situation where a person is misled as to their status as a biological parent. The Tribunal interprets the judgement as including a situation where the child is misled as to their status as a biological child of particular person.
The evidence available to the Tribunal in the circumstances of this review is that the DNA report establishes satisfactorily for the purposes of the Tribunal, that [Father A] is not the father of the visa applicant. The evidence further establishes that the visa applicant was born in [specified year], and his mother left in 2008. The evidence establishes that the grandmother of [Sister A] cared for the visa applicant from 2008 until her death [in] October 2010. The evidence establishes to the satisfaction of the Tribunal that after the death of the grandmother, the visa applicant was cared for by [Sister A’s] aunt [Aunt A] and her husband, until they were killed in the war in December 2013. The Tribunal is satisfied that from October 2010 when the grandmother died in [Country 1], the visa applicant did not reside with [Father A]. The Tribunal is satisfied that upon the death of [Aunt A], the visa applicant was cared for by [Sister A], and not by [Father A]. The Tribunal is satisfied that the visa applicant and the other children were found by [Witness D] in [Town 1], South Sudan after June 2014 and taken by her to the United Nations in Khartoum. The Tribunal is satisfied that at this time the visa applicant was not cared for, or supported in any way by [Father A].
The Tribunal has considered the written statements of the two visa applicants in the combined review hearing, and does not accept the claims made in the written statements of the relationship established between the visa applicants and [Father A] are based on direct knowledge or recollection of the visa applicants. The Tribunal is satisfied that the visa applicants do not have any memory of a relationship with [Father A], based on their oral evidence in the hearing. The Tribunal does not find the written statements of the two visa applicants to be reliable evidence of their relationship with [Father A].
The Tribunal has considered the circumstances of this case, and is satisfied the visa applicant was cared for by other relatives or other adult persons after the death of the grandmother of [Sister A] [in] October 2010. The Tribunal accepts that based on the deceased form issued by the Danish Refugee Council that [Father A] died at the clinic [in] March 2015. The Tribunal is not satisfied that there is evidence of any form of relationship between the deceased and the visa applicant between [October 2010] and [March] 2015.
The Tribunal accepts the visa applicant considers the name [Father A] to be the name of his biological father. The Tribunal is satisfied that DNA testing establishes that [Father A] is not the biological father of the visa applicant.
The Tribunal accepts that [Father A] may have had a relationship with the mother of the visa applicant that ceased in 2008. The Tribunal accepts that [Father A] may have resided with his mother ([Sister A's] grandmother) between 2008 and 2010, prior to her death, at the same time as the visa applicant lived with this woman who is the grandmother of [Sister A]. The Tribunal is not satisfied that there is evidence before it that establishes circumstances that indicate at this time [Father A] was the parent of the visa applicant, or acted in the role of the parent of the visa applicant.
The Tribunal is not satisfied that the evidence before it establishes a relationship that can be described as a parent child relationship existing between the visa applicant and [Father A].
The Tribunal accepts that the review applicant is the sister of [Father A]. The Tribunal is not satisfied that the visa applicant is a relative of [Father A].
For these reasons the Tribunal is not satisfied that the visa applicant is a relative of the Australian review applicant. The Tribunal is not satisfied the visa applicant meets the requirements of reg 1.14(a)(iii), and therefore does not meet the definition of orphan relative at the time of application. Accordingly the Tribunal is not satisfied that the visa applicant meets the requirements of cl.117.211.
As the Tribunal is not satisfied that the visa applicant is an orphan relative at the time of application, and is not satisfied that the visa applicant meets the requirements of cl.117.211, the decision under review must be affirmed.
DECISION
The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicant a Child (Migrant) (Class AH) visa.
Margie Bourke
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.
…