CHO (Migration)

This matter concerned an appeal by Ms Cho and other family members regarding the refusal of their Subclass 186 Employer Nomination Scheme visas. The primary dispute centred on Ms Cho's claimed earnings from her employer, Park and K Pty Ltd, which was relevant to meeting the vocational English requirement for the visa. The Federal Circuit Court was required to consider the evidence presented regarding Ms Cho's income and her credibility as a witness.

The legal issues before the court included whether Ms Cho had provided credible evidence of her earnings, particularly in light of conflicting documentation and oral testimony. Specifically, the court had to determine if Ms Cho's stated salary of $182,000 was substantiated, or if her subsequent tax assessment notices showing an income of approximately $60,000 were accurate. The court also considered the credibility of Mr Ryu Hei Gwon, a director of the company, whose evidence regarding his role and the company's financial arrangements was also found to be inconsistent with official records.

The Tribunal found Ms Cho to be an unreliable witness. Initially, she presented employment contracts, payslips, and a group certificate indicating a salary of $182,000. However, when asked to provide tax returns, she produced assessment notices for the relevant years showing an income of only $60,000. Ms Cho admitted that her earlier evidence and documents were false, claiming to have acted on advice from a previous migration agent. The Tribunal rejected this explanation, finding she understood her actions. The Tribunal also noted inconsistencies in Mr Gwon's evidence regarding his directorship and shareholding in the company, though it did not draw adverse inferences from this. The Tribunal ultimately affirmed the decision to refuse the visas, finding that Ms Cho had not satisfied the primary criteria due to her lack of credibility.

Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the decision to refuse to grant Ms Cho's visa. As the other applicants were seeking to be granted visas as members of Ms Cho's family unit, and Ms Cho had not met the primary criteria, they also failed to satisfy the secondary criteria. Therefore, the Tribunal affirmed the decision to refuse to grant visas to all applicants.