Dorji (Migration)

This matter concerned an application for a Skilled Nomination (Permanent) visa (Subclass 190) by Mr Dorji and his family. The primary issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicant had provided false or misleading information in relation to his visa application, specifically concerning his work experience and promotion dates, which would have triggered Public Interest Criterion (PIC) 4020.

The legal issue before the Tribunal was to determine whether the applicant had provided information that was false or misleading in a material particular, as defined by PIC 4020(1) and PIC 4020(5) of the Migration Regulations 1994. This criterion requires that there be no evidence of the applicant providing a bogus document or false or misleading information in relation to the visa application or a previous visa held within 12 months prior. The Tribunal also considered the applicant's compliance with other aspects of PIC 4020, including previous visa refusals and identity verification.

The Tribunal reasoned that while there was a discrepancy in the promotion dates provided in a work reference letter compared to information later verified by the employer, this information was not material to the assessment of the applicant's eligibility for the visa. The period and duties of employment were undisputed, and the specific dates of promotion were not relevant to the criteria for the visa grant. Consequently, the Tribunal found that the applicant did satisfy PIC 4020.

The Tribunal remitted the applications for Skilled Nominated (Permanent) visas for reconsideration, with a direction that the first applicant met the requirements of PIC 4020 for the purposes of clause 190.216 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations.