KAUR (Migration)

This matter concerned an application for a Skilled Regional Sponsored (Provisional) visa (Subclass 489). The applicant sought review of a decision by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) concerning 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.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicant had provided a bogus document or information that was false or misleading in a material particular, as defined by PIC 4020 and section 5 of the Migration Act 1958. The Tribunal was required to be satisfied that there was no evidence of such conduct in relation to the current application or a visa held within the preceding 12 months. The Tribunal also considered the definition of "bogus document" and "information that is false or misleading in a material particular," noting that an element of fraud or deception by some person was necessary to attract the operation of PIC 4020, as per *Trivedi v MIBP* [2014] FCAFC 42.

The Tribunal reasoned that, based on the evidence before it, it was satisfied that the applicant met PIC 4020. The Tribunal concluded that there was no evidence that the applicant had provided a bogus document or false or misleading information.

Consequently, the Tribunal remitted the application for reconsideration with a direction that the applicant satisfies PIC 4020 for the purposes of clause 489.211 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations.