Dang (Migration)

This matter concerned an application for a Partner (Residence) (Class BS) visa (subclass 801) by the applicant, who was in a spousal relationship with an Australian citizen sponsor. The applicant had previously been granted a Partner (Temporary) (Class UK) visa (subclass 820). The subclass 801 visa was refused by a delegate who raised concerns about the relationship, including information on the sponsor's social media and a purported relationship between the sponsor and the applicant's former sister-in-law. The review of this refusal was heard by Russell Matheson.

The central legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicant met Public Interest Criterion (PIC) 4020, which requires that an applicant has not provided a bogus document or false or misleading information in relation to their visa application or a previous visa held within 12 months. PIC 4020 also includes provisions regarding previous visa refusals for failing to meet the criterion and identity requirements. The Tribunal was required to determine if the applicant had breached PIC 4020(1) and, if so, whether any waiver under PIC 4020(4) was applicable.

The Tribunal concluded that the matter should be remitted for reconsideration. It found that the applicant satisfied PIC 4020 for the purposes of clause 801.226 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations. The Tribunal's reasoning, though not fully detailed in the provided text, indicates that despite the delegate's concerns, the applicant was found to meet the requirements of PIC 4020. The Tribunal noted that the definition of a "bogus document" under section 5(1) of the Migration Act 1958 does not require the false or misleading statement to be relevant to a criterion for the grant of the visa, referencing case law such as *Arora v MIBP* and *Batra v MIAC*.

Consequently, the Tribunal remitted the applications for Partner (Residence) (Class BS) visas for reconsideration, directing that the first applicant met Public Interest Criterion 4020 for the purposes of a Subclass 801 visa.