Adan (Migration)

Adan (Migration) [2021] AATA 341 (2 February 2021)
DECISION RECORD
DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division
REVIEW APPLICANT:  Mrs Asha Adan
VISA APPLICANTS:  Mr Abdullahi Abdi Aden
Mr Mahdi Abdi Aden
CASE NUMBER:  1836318
DIBP REFERENCE(S):  BCC2015/1762417
MEMBER:Christine Kannis
DATE:2 February 2021
PLACE OF DECISION:  Perth
DECISION:The Tribunal remits the applications for Partner (Provisional) (Class UF) visas for reconsideration, with the direction that the first named applicant meets the following criteria for Subclass 309 (Spouse (Provisional)) visas:
·Public Interest Criterion 4020 for the purposes of cl.309.225 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations

Statement made on 02 February 2021 at 6:31pm
CATCHWORDS
MIGRATION – Partner (Provisional) (Class UF) visa – Subclass 309 (Spouse (Provisional)) – bogus document or false or misleading information – police clearance certificate from third country assessed as counterfeit – applied for certificate through local agent – not aware that certificate was not genuine – told that certificate was issued in error, but unable to contact issuing officer – compassionate or compelling circumstances justifying grant of visa – review applicant’s established life, employment, community work and financial support for visa applicants – physical and mental health – no consideration of spousal relationship – decision under review remitted
LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss 5(1), 65, 359A(2)
Migration Regulations, Schedule 2, cl 309.225, Schedule 4, criterion 4020(1)(a), (4), (5)
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
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 Immigration on 28 November 2018 to refuse to grant the visa applicants Partner (Provisional) (Class UF) visas under s.65 of the Migration Act 1958 (the Act).
The visa applicants applied for the visas on 19 June 2015. The delegate refused to grant the visas on the basis that the first named applicant (the applicant) did not satisfy the requirements of cl.309.225 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994 (the Regulations) because the delegate found the applicant did not meet public interest criterion (PIC) 4020.
A copy of the Decision Record was submitted to the Tribunal by the review applicant for the purposes of the review.
The review applicant appeared before the Tribunal on 19 January 2021 to give evidence and present arguments.
The review applicant was represented in relation to the review by her registered migration agent.
For the following reasons, the Tribunal has concluded that the matter should be remitted for reconsideration.
CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE
The law
The issues for determination in this case are whether the applicant satisfies PIC 4020 as required by cl.309.225 and, if not, whether there are compassionate or compelling circumstances to justify waiver of PIC 4020.
Broadly speaking PIC 4020 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: cl.4020(1); and
·the applicant and each member of the family unit has not been refused a visa because of a failure to satisfy cl.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: cl.4020(2) and (2AA); and
·the applicant satisfies the Minister as to his or her identity: cl.4020(2A); and
·neither the applicant nor any family unit member has been refused a visa because of a failure to satisfy cl.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: cl.4020(2B) and (2BA).
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. 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.
Under s. 5(1) of the Act, a bogus document is one that the Minister reasonably suspects:
·purports to have been, but was not, issued in respect of the person; or
·is counterfeit or has been altered by a person who does not have authority to do so; or
·was obtained because of a false or misleading statement, whether or not made knowingly.
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.
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.
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.
The delegate’s decision
The applicant provided a Kenyan police clearance certificate to the Department on 18 June 2018. On 19 July 2018 the Department received a report from the issuing authority, the Directorate of Criminal Investigation Department (DCID), advising that the police clearance certificate was not issued to the applicant and does not exist in their database. The document was assessed as counterfeit.
Prior to making a decision the delegate provided the applicant with an opportunity to comment on the document which had been verified as counterfeit and to provide information as to whether there were any compelling circumstances that affect the interests of Australia; or compassionate or compelling circumstances that affect the interests of an Australian citizen, an Australian permanent resident or an eligible New Zealand citizen that would justify the granting of the visa.
In response the review applicant provided a statutory declaration dated 7 September 2018 which included the following evidence:
·The applicant was living in Ethiopia when the police clearance certificate was requested. He could not travel to Kenya because he did not have a visa and to apply for a visa would cause a delay in providing the certificate.
·She contacted her uncle in Nairobi and he advised that volunteer community social workers work with the Kenyan authorities to assist Somali refugees to obtain papers from the DCID. The applicant posted his passport bio data page and fingerprints to the review applicant’s uncle and he contacted a local Kenyan agent, Mr Hussein Jabir Hassan, who was assisting in processing of the document.
·When the parties received the letter from the Department asking for comment on the counterfeit certificate, the review applicant contacted Mr Hassan. He claimed he had been in contact with the officer who issued the police clearance certificate and said the officer advised there was a mistake with the serial number issued on the certificate and said he would issue another certificate with the correct serial number. To date they are still waiting to receive information from Mr Hassan and from the DCID officer.
·The parties did not purposely falsify the police clearance certificate. They pursued the correct avenue to obtain the police clearance certificate.
·There has been a delay of over two and half years in processing the visa and the extended period of separation has caused the review applicant disappointment, anxiety and stress. The parties provide each other with emotional support on a daily basis through Viber, Facebook and WhatsApp.
·She is unable to relocate to Ethiopia because she would find it difficult to obtain employment and she is the main financial provider of the relationship. She has worked as an enrolled nurse since 2012 and she transfers US$300 per month to the applicant.
·At the age of 10 the review applicant lost her parents in the Somali Civil war.
·She lives with a close friend, Nimo Ali, and assists her in taking care of her children. She has a close connection to the children and Nimo relies on her to take care of them.
The review applicant’s representative provided a written submission which contained information not materially different to the review applicant’s statutory declaration as well as the following information:
·The extended period of separation has affected the review applicant’s psychological health. Her psychological health and finances have been detrimentally impacted by the separation and this will worsen by further delay and separation.
·The review applicant’s employment supervisor has provided a letter in which she indicates that the visa process has affected the review applicant’s standard of work.
·The review applicant has made Australia her home and has established a life which she wants to share with the applicant. She has existing friendship networks in Australia who will be adversely affected by a decision not to waive PIC 4020.
·The parties’ financial security depends on the review applicant remaining in Australia and working.
·The review applicant’s employer will also be affected if she relocates to Ethiopia.
The delegate decided that the applicant had provided a bogus document within the definition of s.5(1) of the Act. The delegate decided there were no compelling circumstances that affect the interests of Australia or any compassionate or compelling circumstances that affect the interests of an Australian citizen, an Australian permanent resident or an eligible New Zealand citizen that would justify the grant of this visa.
Information provided prior to the hearing
Prior to the hearing, the Tribunal sent the review applicant a letter pursuant to s.359A(2) of the Act inviting her to provide information in writing as to any compelling or compassionate reasons to justify waiver should the Tribunal find PIC 4020 has not been met in this case. In response, the review applicant provided statutory declarations and written submissions previously provided as well as the following:
·Statutory declaration dated 28 December 2020 made by the review applicant
·Medical reports dated 24 September 2020 and 19 October 2020 (see below)
·Affidavit made by Mr Hussein Jabar Hassan dated 11 September 2018
·Statements made by members of the Somali community in Australia attesting to the review applicant’s good character
·Written submission from the review applicant’s representative which was not materially different to the written submission provided to the delegate, the content of which is set out earlier in this decision
Has the applicant given, or caused to be given a bogus document, or information that is false or misleading in material particular?
As discussed with the review applicant at the hearing, the focus of the original decision maker was whether the applicant met PIC 4020 and no formal assessment was undertaken to determine whether the applicant and the review applicant were in a spousal relationship at the time of decision. Accordingly, the Tribunal has also refrained from formally considering this issue.
At hearing the review applicant confirmed that she and the applicant were not aware that the police clearance certificate provided to the Department was not genuine. She said the applicant has no criminal history and therefore they did not question the genuineness of the police clearance certificate which indicated he had no criminal history. In response to the Tribunal asking whether a genuine Kenyan police clearance certificate has now been provided to the Department, the applicant said she has made enquiries and has been advised that the DCID does not issue police clearance certificates to a person with a Somali passport.
In his affidavit, Mr Hassan said after being informed that the police clearance certificate was not genuine, he sought clarification and was told there was a mistake with the applicant’s serial number and it would be rectified as soon as possible. He said weeks had passed and he was constantly told the officer in charge is away or unavailable. At hearing, the review applicant told the Tribunal that Mr Hassan has said he has not been able to contact the officer.
The Tribunal accepts the review applicant’s evidence that she and the applicant were not aware that the police clearance certificate was not genuine, however, as noted, PIC 4020 applies whether or not the document or information was provided by the applicant knowingly or unwittingly. It is not necessary for the Tribunal to determine that the applicant was involved in obtaining the bogus document or that he provided that document knowingly.
To meet the definition of bogus document, there need only be a reasonable suspicion of a document being bogus, not probative evidence. The Department’s verification process assessed the police clearance certificate provided by the applicant as counterfeit. The Tribunal has considered the documents provided in response to the natural justice letter and the oral evidence provided at hearing however accords significant weight to the outcome of the Department’s verification process. Accordingly, the Tribunal reasonably suspects that the Kenyan police clearance certificate is counterfeit and finds that it is a bogus document within the definition of s.5(1) of the Act. The applicant submitted the document when applying for the Partner visa and the Tribunal finds that there is 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.
The Tribunal decided that the applicant does not meet PIC 4020(1).
Should the requirements of PIC 4020(1) or (2) be waived?
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 r.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.
Regarding compelling reasons that affect the interests of Australia, the review applicant said in addition to her contribution to Australia as a nurse, she also undertakes community work which includes assisting the elderly with daily tasks. She said she is a compassionate person and she brings this quality to her employment and her community work. The review applicant’s representative told the Tribunal that the Somalian community in Australia is sometimes portrayed negatively and the value of the review applicant’s community work to the quality of life of the individuals she assists and to the standing of the Somalian community cannot be measured. The review applicant said if the visa is not granted, she will not relocate and will remain in Australia.
The review applicant told the Tribunal that if the applicant is granted the visa, he will study in Australia and then work. She said he might do cleaning work.
The Tribunal had regard to the Department’s guidelines which say there may be compelling circumstances affecting the interests of Australia if:
- Australia’s trade or business opportunities would be adversely affected were the person not granted the visa
- Australia’s relationship with a foreign government would be damaged if the person is not granted the visa or
- Australia would miss out on a significant benefit that the person could contribute to Australia’s business, economic, cultural or other development (for example, a special skill that is highly sought after in Australia) if the person was not granted the visa.
The Tribunal considered the review applicant’s evidence and the guidelines and was not satisfied that there are compelling circumstances that affect the interests of Australia to justify the grant of the visa in the present case.
The Tribunal turns to consider the remaining circumstances for waiver. The review applicant is an Australian citizen. Accordingly, the question that arises is whether there are compassionate or compelling circumstances that affect her interests if the requirement to meet PIC 4020(1) is not waived.
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.
In her statutory declaration dated 28 December 2020 the review applicant said:
·She arrived in Australia in 2002 as a refugee. Prior to her arrival she lived at a UHNCR facility in Kenya for about six years during which she experienced many unpleasant encounters.
·In Australia she was united with family members and she started a new life.
·She studied and worked in Australia and graduated with a Diploma of Nursing in July 2012. She travelled to Kenya for six weeks after she graduated.
·In August 2012 she commenced working at Hollywood Private Hospital.
·Her engagement with the Somali community began in 2005. She also provides support to other community members including providing emotional and social support, assisting the elderly or disabled with shopping and cleaning and running errands.
·Her involvement in the obtaining of the Kenyan police certificate for the applicant is set out in her statutory declaration dated 7 September 2018. She is a person of integrity and has no reason to be a party to obtaining a bogus document. She has resided in Australia for nearly 20 years and she has no criminal convictions.
The review applicant told the Tribunal that they have waited for the visa to be granted for seven years. A delay in visa processing is not uncommon and the mere passage of time, in itself, does not constitute a compassionate or compelling circumstance.
The review applicant said she married the applicant in Kenya in 2014. Since then she has visited him four times, the most recent occasion being in 2020 when she went to Malaysia. She told the Tribunal that initially the applicant went to Malaysia on a medical visa however he has now been granted a refugee visa. She said she sends the applicant AUD$300 per month and this pays for all his living expenses in Malaysia. She said the second named applicant is the applicant’s youngest sibling. He has remained in Somalia and is living with family friends. The review applicant said the second named applicant did not travel to Malaysia with the applicant because she is providing financial support to the applicant and she could not afford to pay for the second named applicant’s travel to and stay in Malaysia.

In an undated statement provided by the applicant, he said the second named applicant is his younger brother. He said the second named applicant is dependent on him and came into his care after the deaths of their parents.
The review applicant told the Tribunal that she speaks to the applicant every day, sometimes twice a day. She said she speaks to the second named applicant about twice a month. She said she has found it very difficult to be separated from the applicant for such a long period and said she has suffered enough. The extended period of separation is a cause of disappointment, stress and distress to the review applicant and she wants to be reunited with her partner of seven years on a permanent basis.
The review applicant said she has been working at Hollywood Private Hospital since 2012. The hospital is operated by Ramsay Health Care. She is a registered nurse and she wants to study to be a midwife. She has not been able to undertake this study because of the constraints arising from the financial support she provides to the applicant.
When asked whether she could relocate to Malaysia and join the applicant, the review applicant said she does not think she would be able to secure employment in Malaysia. She said the applicant is not permitted to work and she is the sole financial provider for both of them. She said last year she made enquires of the Ramsay Health Care operated hospital in Malaysia regarding possible employment and was advised that they do not employ staff from overseas. She did not make enquiries of any other hospitals because she thought her best chance would be at a Ramsay Health Care provider.
The review applicant said her employment enquiries were made because she considered temporarily relocating for six months to undergo IVF. She said if she has to relocate temporarily for IVF purposes, she will have to take unpaid leave. She said the cost of one cycle of IVF treatment is USD$5000-$6000. She told the Tribunal that she would have to pay for her and the applicant’s living expenses and the IVF costs from her savings. The review applicant said if the visa is not granted she will have to keep travelling overseas to visit the applicant as well as for IVF treatment. She said this would cause her financial hardship.
In a letter dated 29 September 2020 from Park Medical Group, Dr Sarat Rangaiah said the review applicant and the applicant would like to start a family and they will need to go through fertility treatment. Dr Rangaiah said any delay may increase the review applicant’s risk of pregnancy complications as well as increase difficulty conceiving. Dr Rangaiah said her husband has to be in the same country at the same time fertility management is started and said she will need to obtain this overseas.
In a medical report dated 19 October 2020 gynaecologist Dr Mini Zachariah refers to the review applicant’s subfertility issues which have been present since 2014 and to her proceeding with fertility assisted treatment in Malaysia.
The review applicant told the Tribunal that she is 36 years of age and she has always wanted to be a mother. She said her age, the extended separation from the applicant and her subfertility issues have made it difficult for her to conceive.
A written statement dated 28 December 2020 from the review applicant’s cousin, Ms Nima Abdi Hussein was provided. Ms Hussein said the review applicant has become the glue that keeps the extended family in Australia connected. She said the review applicant surrounds herself with children and referred to her devastation on 19 August 2020 when she was told of her subfertility issues.
A letter dated 3 September 2018 from the Clinical Nurse Manager at Hollywood Private Hospital was provided. The letter said the previous three years had been stressful for the review applicant and she had become withdrawn and her work performance had been adversely affected and caused her to take increased sick time. The letter said the review applicant is hard working and a pleasure to work with and the ward team would be greatly affected if she was to leave.
In a statutory declaration dated 7 September 2018 Ms Nimo Ali, a friend of the review applicant, said the lengthy visa process has had a negative impact on her psychological health. Ms Ali said she has seen the review applicant stressed and crying about how long she has to wait to be reunited with the applicant. She said this has caused the review applicant to have difficulties with sleep and she has observed the review applicant to be awake during the night.
The Tribunal considered the circumstances in which the bogus document was obtained. The Tribunal accepts the review applicant’s evidence about the circumstances in which the bogus document was provided to the Department. The Tribunal is satisfied that the bogus document was provided without the review applicant being aware it was bogus, and without any fraudulent intent. The Tribunal takes this into account in assessing the circumstances affecting her interests.
The Tribunal is persuaded that there are compassionate circumstances affecting the review applicant’s interests. The Tribunal accepts, on the evidence before it, that the review applicant’s emotional health and her finances have been detrimentally impacted by the separation and this will be exacerbated by further delay and separation if the requirement to meet PIC 4020(1) is not waived. The Tribunal also accepts that the review applicant intends to remain in Australia and will not permanently relocate to reside in the applicant’s country of residence. The Tribunal accepts that the review applicant’s financial security depends on her remaining in Australia and working.
The Tribunal considers that the review applicant’s circumstances, when considered in their entirety, which include her subfertility issues, the extended separation from her husband (the applicant), the emotional and financial impact of that separation and her inability to relocate to Malaysia, are sufficient to demonstrate that there are compassionate or compelling circumstances affecting the interests of an Australian citizen
As noted, the Tribunal is also required to consider whether to exercise the discretion to waive the requirements, having regard to the compelling or compassionate circumstances. The Tribunal accepts that the parties were not aware that the police clearance certificate was bogus. The Tribunal takes into account that the parties have been separated for a significant period and if the visa is refused they will face a further extended separation. The Tribunal has formed the view that these circumstances justify the grant of the visa, assuming all other criteria are met. Therefore, the Tribunal has decided to exercise the discretion to waive the requirements of PIC4020(1)(a), as provided for by PIC4020(4).
Has the applicant satisfied the identity requirements?
Clause 4020(2A) requires an applicant satisfy the Tribunal as to his or her identity. There was no issue raised about this by the delegate. The evidence before the Tribunal included the applicant’s passport and the second named applicant’s birth certificate. The Tribunal is satisfied that the visa applicants satisfy the identity requirements. Therefore, the applicant and the second named applicant meet cl.4020(2A).
Therefore, the Tribunal finds the applicant meets 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 application 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: cl.4020(2BA) and therefore does not apply to the second named applicant in the present case.
Having regard to all of the evidence before it, there no evidence that the applicant or any member of the family unit (as defined in r.1.12) have been refused a visa in the relevant period because of a failure to satisfy cl.4020(2A).
Therefore PIC 4020(2B) is met.
For the above reasons, the Tribunal finds the applicant meets the requirements of PIC 4020 for the purposes of cl.309.225.
Given the findings above, the appropriate course is to remit the applications for the visas to the Minister to consider the remaining criteria for a Subclass 309 visa.
DECISION
The Tribunal remits the applications for Partner (Provisional) (Class UF) visas for reconsideration, with the direction that the first named applicant meets the following criteria for Subclass 309 (Spouse (Provisional)) visas:
·Public Interest Criterion 4020 for the purposes of cl.309.225 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations
Christine Kannis
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.
…

[2021] AATA 341

2 February 2021

Key Legal Topics

Areas of Law

Immigration

Administrative Law

Legal Concepts

Judicial Review

Procedural Fairness

Statutory Construction

Natural Justice

Remedies