Kaur (Migration) - [2023] AATA 4171

Kaur (Migration) [2023] AATA 4171 (6 December 2023)
DECISION RECORD
DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division
APPLICANTS:  Ms Sandeep Kaur
Mr Lovepreet Singh Sahota
REPRESENTATIVE:  Mr Jujhar Bajwa (MARN: 0742209)
CASE NUMBER:  2111252
HOME AFFAIRS REFERENCE(S):          BCC2019/681818
MEMBER:Antonio Dronjic
DATE:6 December 2023
PLACE OF DECISION:  Melbourne
DECISION:The Tribunal remits the applications for Skilled Nominated (Permanent) visas for reconsideration, with the direction that the first named applicant meets the following criteria for a Subclass 190 - Skilled - Nominated visa:
·public interest criterion 4020 for the purposes of cl 190.216 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth).

Statement made on 06 December 2023 at 11:04am
CATCHWORDS
MIGRATION – Skilled Nominated (Permanent) (Class SN) visa – Subclass 190 (Skilled - Nominated) – false or misleading information – work experience – business name cancelled but ABN remained operational during claimed employment – discrepancies in salary and superannuation not relevant to fact of employment – written and oral evidence from former employer – second job not declared – decision under review remitted
LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss 5(1), 65
Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth), Schedule 2, cl 190.216, Schedule 4, criterion 4020(1)
CASES
Arora v MIBP [2016] FCAFC 35
Batra v MIAC [2013] FCA 274
Bushell v MIAC [2008] FMCA 1193
Sharma v MIMAC [2013] FCCA 1280
Sran v MIBP [2014] FCCA 37
Talukder v MIAC [2009] FMCA 223
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 Home Affairs on 13 August 2021 to refuse to grant the applicants Skilled Nominated (Permanent) visas under s 65 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (the Act).
The applicants applied for the visas on 28 May 2019. The delegate refused to grant the visas on the basis that the first named applicant (the applicant) did not satisfy the requirements of public interest criterion (PIC) 4020(1) for the purposes of meeting cl 190.216 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth) (the Regulations). The delegate found that the applicant has given or caused to be given false and misleading information related to her Australian work experience.
The applicants sought review of the delegate’s decision on 26 August 2021 and with their applications provided a copy of the primary decision record. The applicants were represented in relation to the review by their registered migration agent.
On 28 September 2023, the Tribunal wrote to the applicants advising them that it had considered material before it and was unable to make a favourable decision on this material alone and invited the applicants to attend a hearing on 23 November 2023.
On 16 and 17 November 2023 the Tribunal received documentary evidence from the applicants’ representative. The list of documents submitted is attached to this decision record as Attachment A.
On 22 November 2023 the Tribunal received documentary evidence from the applicants’ representative. The list of documents submitted is attached to this decision record as Attachment B.
The applicant appeared before the Tribunal on 23 November 2023 to give evidence and present arguments. The Tribunal also received oral evidence from Mr Pravin Bhatnagar, who is the applicant’s former employer. The Tribunal hearing was conducted with the assistance of an interpreter in the Punjabi and English languages. The applicants were represented in relation to the review. The representative attended the Tribunal hearing.
The Tribunal explained to the applicant the requirements of PIC 4020(1), PIC 4020(4), PIC 4020(5) and cl 190.216.
The applicant is a citizen of India. She is married and does not have children. She has two siblings and parents and none of them are Australian citizens or permanent residents. The applicant gave evidence that neither her nor her husband have blood relatives in Australia who are Australian citizens or permanent residents.
Ms Kaur first came to Australia in September 2014 as a holder of a student visa. By October 2016, she had completed a master’s in business administration at Asia Pacific International College in Australia. From March 2017 to October 2017, she had also completed a Certificate III in Light Vehicle Mechanical Technology at Brighton Institute of Technology.
Following the completion of the Job Ready Program, on 9 April 2019, the applicant obtained a Job Ready final assessment outcome issued by Trades Recognition Australia for her nominated occupation of Motor Mechanic (ANZSCO 321211).
Currently, Ms Kaur work as a disability support worker and her husband works as a truck driver. She gave evidence that in 2019 she worked as an Uber Eats driver. She could not recall when exactly she started working as an Uber driver.
When the Tribunal enquired why she studied the Certificate III in Light Vehicle Mechanical Technology, considering that she previously completed a bachelor’s degree in India and Master of Business Administration in Australia, Ms Kaur stated that together with her husband she intended to open a mechanical shop in Australia. When asked by the Tribunal, she stated that her husband is not a qualified motor mechanic, but his hobby was fixing cars. She further explained that her former migration agent advised her that she will not be able to obtain an Australian permanent residency relying on her degree and masters’ courses.
In her visa application form, Ms Kaur claimed that she was employed as an assistant motor mechanic at Vserve Motors (mechanic shop located at Dandenong) during the period from 26 October 2017 to 27 March 2019. At the relevant time, she resided at St Albans Victoria, a Melbourne suburb located approximately a one hour drive from Dandenong.
In support of her claim, she inter alia provided an undated employment reference stating that she worked as an assistant motor mechanic at Vserve Motors from 26 October 2017 to 27 March 2019; payslips issued by Vserve Motors for the period from 1 March 2018 to 28 March 2019 indicating that the applicant worked 34 hours per week and was paid an hourly rate of $21. Payslips also stated the date the payment of her salary was made and indicated that no penalty rate payments were made for the applicant’s claimed work on Saturdays.
The applicant also submitted copies of her ANZ Bank account statements evidencing transactions (including deposits of her salary received from Vserve Motors) made between 18 September 2017 and 15 May 2019.
In the visa application form and form 80 initially submitted to the Department with her visa application, Ms Kaur failed to declare that during the period from October 2017 to February 2019, she also worked at Allied Pinnacle bakery located in North Altona. However, the new form 80 submitted to the Department, after the applicant received an invitation to comment on adverse findings on 3 March 2020, contained details of her employment at the bakery.
In support of her employment at the bakery, she submitted payslips and documents signed by the applicant stating the number of weekly hours worked at the bakery (40 hours per week). This document was not verified by her employer, and it did not state the time she commenced and finished her daily shifts.
Ms Kaur provided two statutory declarations. The first one is dated 16 March 2020 and was submitted to the Department. The second declaration dated 17 November 2023 was submitted to the Tribunal. In her evidence, the applicant confirmed that everything stated in those declarations is true and correct and that she does not want to change or amend any part of those declarations.
She reiterated in her evidence that she worked at Vserve Motors 34 hours per week. She claims that her work hours were Monday to Friday from 7 am to 1 pm and on Saturdays from 8 am to 12 pm.
When the Tribunal noted that no record of hours worked at Vserve Motors was provided to the Department or the Tribunal, Ms Kaur stated that she provided payslips from this employer. The Tribunal noted that payslips do not show what time she commenced and finished work on any day she claims to have been working there.
The Tribunal further observed that one of the requirements for a Job Ready assessment was for her to keep a journal (as indicated in the Job Ready assessment document provided by the applicant). Ms Kaur gave evidence that she recorded the hours worked at Vserve Motors in her notebook and undertook to provide a copy of that notebook to the Tribunal. She further stated that her employer recorded her hours of work and that she saw that record.
When asked who else was working at this mechanical shop during her claimed period of employment, the applicant stated that the business also employed two other workers (Monfree and Param) but was not sure whether those workers were also undertaking Job Ready experience at this business. She did not ask her co-workers to provide statements confirming her employment at Vserve Motors as she no longer has contact with them.
She gave evidence that her salary was paid by her employer on a fortnightly basis by bank transfers to her nominated ANZ Bank account and that she received her payslips on a weekly basis. Ms Kaur further stated that, during the relevant time, she operated another account at the Commonwealth Bank (jointly with her husband) and that her husband had his own account at the National Australia Bank. The Tribunal requested and the applicant undertook to provide statements for all accounts related to the period from October 2017 to March 2019.
In her evidence, Ms Kaur reiterated that she worked at Vserve Motors on Saturdays between 8 am and 12 pm. The Tribunal noted that payslips provided to the Department do not support this claim because they did not record any payment of penalty rates for work on Saturdays. Ms Kaur stated that she was paid the same rate of $21 per hour if she was working on Saturdays.
The Tribunal noted that payment dates recorded on the payslips do not correspond with dates when deposits of her salary were made to her bank account and asked the applicant to explain this discrepancy. The applicant changed her evidence and stated that deposits of her salary were sometimes made on a weekly, fortnightly and monthly basis, depending on what was convenient to Mr Bhatnagar. When asked why she changed her evidence (as she previously stated that payments were made on a fortnightly basis) Ms Kaur stated that most payments were made on a fortnightly basis.
Ms Kaur conceded that the date of payments as recorded on payslips do not corelate to dates when her salary was deposited into her account and stated that payslips were produced by her employer, and she had no say in that matter.
The Tribunal noted that payslips do not record any superannuation contributions paid by her employer during the claimed period of employment. Ms Kaur gave evidence that she was paid superannuation contributions by Vserve Motors and undertook to provide copies of a superannuation statement for the relevant period.
Ms Kaur reiterated in her evidence that, during the period from October 2017 to February 2019, she was also employed at Allied Pinnacle bakery located in the suburb of Altona North. She stated that she was employed on a casual basis and that she worked at the bakery 40 hours per week. Her daily shifts were from 3pm to 11pm.
The Tribunal noted that the applicant provided a record of hours she claims to have worked at the bakery which was signed by her and not verified by her employer. The document submitted does not state when the applicant commenced and finished work on any particular day. The applicant gave evidence that her employer also kept her record of attendance at work and that she will try to obtain the official records from her former employer. She added that she is not certain if this business is still operating because the last time she had a contact with her former employer was in 2021.
The Tribunal observed that, according to her evidence, she was working 13 hours every weekday in addition to travelling from and to work that took at least two hours daily.
The Tribunal confirmed with the applicant that she had read and understood written submissions provided by her representative. The Tribunal noted that in his submissions, the applicants’ representative did not address waiver provisions and asked the applicant if there were any circumstances that she would like to bring to the Tribunal’s attention. She stated that there is nothing she would like to bring to the Tribunal’s attention.
Evidence of Mr Pravin Bhatnagar
Mr Bhatnagar is the applicant’s former employer. He owned and operated four motor mechanical shops in Victoria: Vserve Motors in Dandenong, Baleen and two East India shops in Croydon and Preston. The witness stated that all mechanical shops are now closed as he was diagnosed with dementia and was no longer able to operate those businesses.
In his evidence, Mr Bhatnagar confirmed that he submitted to the Tribunal his statutory declaration dated 19 November 2023 and that everything stated in that declaration is true and correct.
The witness stated that the applicant was recommended for the job by his friend but was no longer able to recollect the name of that friend. During the time the applicant worked at his Dandenong shop, the business employed two other motor mechanics who were obtaining work experience.
When questioned by the Tribunal, Mr Bhatnagar gave evidence that his business was subject to investigation conducted by the Department related to issuance of work experience letters. According to his recollection, approximately 15 people obtained work experience as motor mechanics at his four shops.
He stated that applicant worked from 7 am to 1 pm on weekdays and from 8 am to 12 pm on Saturdays. The Tribunal noted that according to payslips provided, the applicant was never paid penalty rates for working on Saturdays. The witness confirmed that he was not paying penalty rates to his employees.
When the Tribunal noted that payment days recorded on payslips do not corelate to actual deposits of the applicant’s wages into her bank account, Mr Bhatnagar confirmed this to be the case.
When the Tribunal noted that payslips provided do not record payment of mandatory superannuation contributions to the applicant, Mr Bhatnagar stated that the business paid the applicant’s superannuation on a lump sum basis.
The applicant was granted additional time until 30 November 2023 to provide documents requested at the hearing.
On 27 November 2023, the Tribunal issued a summons to produce documents to the Director of Labourpower Recruitment Services Pty Ltd, the company that issued payslips to the applicant related to her job at the North Altona bakery. The Tribunal requested confirmation of hours worked by Ms Kaur, stating the time she commenced and completed her shifts at Allied Pinnacle (bakery located in North Altona, Victoria) during the period from October 2017 to February 2019.
On the same day, Mr Kurt, the National Human Resources Manager of Labourpower Recruitment Services Pty Ltd submitted to the Tribunal:
·Shift log extracted from their system regarding applicant’s assignment with Allied Pinnacle; and
·Confirmation of Employment letter confirming the period of employment and start and finish time of the applicant’s shifts.
On 30 November 2023, the applicants’ representative submitted additional documents requested during the hearing. The list of documents submitted is attached to this decision record as Attachment C.
For the following reasons, the Tribunal has concluded that the matter should be remitted for reconsideration.
CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE
The issue in this review is whether the visa applicant meets PIC 4020 as required by cl 190.216 for the grant of the visa. Broadly speaking, this 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: PIC 4020(1); and
·the applicant and each member of the family unit has not been refused a visa because of a failure to satisfy PIC 4020(1) during the period starting three 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(2) and (2AA); and
·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).
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 Attachment D to this decision.
Has the applicant given, or caused to be given a bogus document, or information that is false or misleading in a material particular?
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 (see the attachment to this decision). 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.
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 concept of ‘no evidence’ in PIC 4020(1) is not defined in the legislation. However, the Tribunal notes that in Bushell v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship & Anor [2008] FMCA 1193, Scarlett FM found there was jurisdictional error in a finding by the Tribunal (differently constituted) that there was ‘no evidence’ in circumstances where there was some evidence, albeit relatively slight, that supported the applicant’s claim. Accordingly, the Court held that in such a situation, it was not correct for the Tribunal to say there was no evidence.
The Tribunal notes that in Talukder v MIAC & Anor [2009] FMCA 223 (‘Talukder’s case’) Driver FM found that the word ‘evidence’ requires an assessment of the quality of the evidence being relied on by the Tribunal before finding whether an applicant fails to satisfy the criterion. The Court stated that the use of the word ‘evidence’ in cl 880.224 (as it was prior to 2 April 2011):
… establishes that the clause requires something more than mere existence of information suggestive of falsity. It requires some probative information. In other words, a decision maker cannot simply take any information suggestive of falsity as sufficient for the purposes of the clause. The decision maker must satisfy himself or herself that the information is acceptable as evidence pointing to false or misleading information having been given for the purposes of establishing the validity of the visa application and that the falsity or misleading information was material to the visa application.[1] [emphasis added]
[1] [2009] FMCA 223 at [20]

This approach was endorsed in Sharma v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs and Citizenship[2] (‘Sharma’s case’) where the Court expressly considered the meaning of ‘evidence’ in the context of PIC 4020. Specifically, the Court in Sharma’s case held that the word ‘evidence’ is used to impose a requirement that whatever facts are conveyed by the material relied upon to establish that information given in connection with the application for a visa was false or misleading in a material particular, they must be facts that are sufficiently probative to lead to that conclusion.
[2] [2013] FCCA 1280 (Judge Manousaridis, 6 September 2013) at [33]–[37]
Further, in Sran v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection[3] (‘Sran’s case’) the Court held that what a third party may have done in other cases could not:
… be a basis for establishing such a serious matter as fraud in the current case. While the circumstances may be “suspicious”, it is evidence about the applicant’s case that is necessary, not simply the drawing of inferences from the circumstances in other cases.
[3] [2014] FCCA 37 (Judge Nichollas,17 January 2014) at [71]
As such, the Tribunal must make an assessment as to whether there is evidence that is sufficiently probative to lead to a conclusion that the information given was a bogus document or false or misleading in a material particular.
The applicant was invited to apply for a Subclass 190 visa on 7 May 2019. In her application, lodged with the Department on 28 May 2019, the applicant nominated the occupation of Motor Mechanic. In the visa application form, the applicant claimed points under Schedule 6D.4 to the Regulations related to her Australian work experience obtained at Vserve Motors between 26 October 2017 and 27 March 2019.
In support of her claim, the applicant, inter alia, submitted an undated work reference letter from Vserve Motors, payslips and a PAYG summary for the 2017/18 and 2018/19 financial years issued by her employer.
The Department conducted verification of the applicant’s claim of Australian work experience and identified several concerns. The Department obtained information from the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) that the business name Vserve Motors was cancelled on 30 January 2016. The applicant provided written submissions explaining that, while an Australian business name for Vserve Motors was cancelled on 31 January 2016, its ABN number remained operational throughout the applicant’s claimed period of employment. This claim was supported by the relevant ASIC extract.
Similarly, a reasonable explanation was provided by the applicant in respect of discrepancies contained in the PAYG summary for the 2017/18 financial year.
As the Tribunal noted during the hearing, to claim 5 points under item 6D41 of Schedule 6D to the Regulations, for her ‘Australian employment experience qualifications’ the applicant was required to provide evidence that she was employed in Australia in her nominated or closely related occupation for at least 12 months in the 10 years immediately before she was invited to apply for this visa. The employment in this context is defined as ‘engaged in an occupation for remuneration for at least 20 hours a week’.
While acknowledging the delegate’s concerns regarding the discrepancies related to the applicant’s PAYG summaries, payslips and other evidence of remuneration, the Tribunal is of the view that, even if some documents related to the applicant’s income contain false and misleading information (for example − payslips issued by Vserve Motors wherein dates of payment of salary do not correspond to dates when the salary was deposited in the applicant’s bank account), such information is not relevant in a material particular as long as the Tribunal can be satisfied on the evidence presented that the applicant worked for remuneration in her nominated (or closely related) occupation for at least 20 hours during the period of at lest 12 months in the 10 years preceding the invitation to apply for the visa. The Tribunal notes that the Regulations do not prescribe what is the level of remuneration that the applicant ought to be paid for his or her work.
The applicant provided evidence of her employment as a process worker at the North Altona bakery during the period from October 2016 to February 2019. In her response to the Department’s invitation to comment on verification outcome, the applicant stated that working hours at Vserve Motors never coincided with the working hours at the bakery.
The applicant submitted a handwritten copy of the Wildon Employees Hours and Wages Record Book for the period 28 February 2018 through to 13 March 2019 evidencing the weekly number of hours worked at the bakery. According to this document, the applicant worked approximately 40 hours per week. In her evidence, she stated that she would commence work at 3 pm and finish at 11 pm.
The applicant claims that she worked at Vserve Motors 34 hours per week and that her work hours were Monday to Friday from 7 am to 1 pm and on Saturdays from 8 am to 12 pm. In addition, she was travelling to and from work approximately two hours. This claim was supported by a written statement and oral evidence from Mr Bhatnagar.
The Tribunal had some reservations concerning this evidence as it appeared that the applicant claimed to have been working and travelling 15 hours per day or 85 hours per week. At the hearing, the Tribunal requested that the applicant provide a record of hours worked at Vserve Motors indicating the start time and time when she finished her shifts. She has done that.
On 27 November 2023, the Tribunal issued a summons to produce documents to the Director of Labourpower Recruitment Services Pty Ltd, the company that issued payslips to the applicant related to her job at the North Altona bakery. The Tribunal requested confirmation of hours worked by Ms Kaur, stating the time she commenced and completed her shifts at Allied Pinnacle (bakery located in North Altona, Victoria) during the period from October 2017 to February 2019.
On the same day, the requested evidence was provided. In the letter of 27 November 2023, Mr Kurt confirmed that the applicant commenced her employment with Labourpower Recruitment Services Pty Ltd on 17 October 2016 with their client Allied Pinnacle (North Altona bakery) and that the assignment ceased on 24 February 2019. The shift that was undertaken during this period was 3pm to 11pm.
Based on the evidence before it, including the applicant’s oral evidence, statements from her former employer and record of hours worked at Vserve Motors, the Tribunal is satisfied that the applicant was engaged in an occupation for remuneration for at least 20 hours a week during the period of at least 12 months between 26 October 2017 and 27 March 2019.
The Tribunal is satisfied that documents provided in support of the applicant’s claim of Australian work experience undertaken at Vserve Motors between 26 October 2017 and 27 March 2019 do not contain false and misleading statements that are relevant in a material particular.
As a result, the Tribunal is not satisfied that there is sufficiently probative evidence that the applicant has given, or caused to be given, to the Minister, or an officer of the Department, the Tribunal or a relevant assessing authority a bogus document or information that is false or misleading in a material particular in relation to the application for a Subclass 190 visa or in relation to a visa held in the 12 months before the visa application was made. Accordingly, the Tribunal finds that the applicant meets the requirements of PIC 4020(1).
Has a visa previously been refused on the basis of a failure to satisfy PIC 4020(1)?
PIC 4020(2) requires the Tribunal to be satisfied that the applicant and each member of the family unit have not been refused a visa because of a failure to satisfy PIC 4020(1) in the period commencing three 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(2AA).
There is no evidence before the Tribunal that the applicant or a member of her family unit has been refused a visa because of a failure to satisfy PIC 4020(1) in the period commencing three years before the application was made to the present.
Therefore, PIC 4020(2) is met.
Has the applicant satisfied the identity requirements?
PIC 4020(2A) requires an applicant to satisfy the Tribunal as to his or her identity. Having regard to the applicant’s passport located on the Department’s file the Tribunal is satisfied as to the applicant’s identity. Therefore, 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 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 applicant or member of her family unit have been refused a visa because of a failure to satisfy identity requirements during the relevant period.
Based on the above, the applicant does satisfy PIC 4020 for the purposes of cl 190.216.
As the second named applicant applied on the basis that he is a member of the family unit of the primary applicant, his application will be determined by reference to the outcome of the applicant’s application on remittal to the Department for reconsideration.
DECISION
The Tribunal remits the applications for Skilled Nominated (Permanent) visas for reconsideration, with the direction that the first named applicant meets the following criteria for a Subclass 190 - Skilled - Nominated visa:
·public interest criterion 4020 for the purposes of cl 190.216 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth).
Antonio Dronjic
Member
Attachment A
·Form 1023 – Correction to Application for points based skilled Migration Visa submitted online on 7 March 2020
·Amended PAYG summary for year ending 2018
·ASIC Current and Historical Extract dated 12 March 2020
·Mrs Sandeep Kaur - FORM 80 – Department form
·Mrs Sandeep Kaur - Individual Tax Return for year ending 2018
·Mrs Sandeep Kaur -ANZ Bank Statements for the period 15/9/2017 to 15/11/2017, 15/11/2017 to 15/1/2018, 15/1/2018 to 15/3/2018, 15/3/2018 to 15/5/2018, 15/5/2018 to 13/7/2018, 13/7/2018 to 14/9/2018, 14/8/2018 to 15/11/2018, 15/11/2018 to 15/1/2019, 15/1/2019 to 15/3/2019 and 15/3/2019 to 15/5/2019
·Mrs Sandeep Kaur - PAYG: 2018 and 2019
·Job ready documents signed in 2019 and TRA Job Ready Final Assessment Outcome letter dated 9/4/19
·Statutory Declarations signed by Work Colleague Harmandeep Kaur dated 13 November 2023
·Statutory Declaration signed by Work Colleague Ramanpreet K Wahla dated 13 November 2023
·Representatives’ submission dated 14 November 2023
·Applicants Notice of Assessments for years ending 2018 and 2019
Attachment B
·Statutory Declaration by the applicant dated 17 November 2023
·Letter from Mrs Sandeep Kaur’s’ former Accountant dated 22 November 2023 confirming amendments to Group Certificate
·Letter from Employer dated 19 November 2023
·Representatives’ submission dated 22 November 2023
Attachment C
·Bank of Melbourne Statement - Personal savings (applicant and her partner) The amount was credited from - Applicant’s personal account (ANZ) and Lovepreet Singh (NAB).
·NAB Statement- Personal account of Lovepreet Singh (partner)
·Commonwealth Bank – Joint bank account
·Confirmation of Employment from Labourpower Recruitment Services
·Statutory Declaration from Lovepreet Singh Sahota (partner)
·Employment hours record book (VSERVE)
·Applicant’s Superannuation Statement
ATTACHMENT D
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.
…