KAUR (Migration)

This matter concerned an application for a Skilled Work Regional (Provisional) (Class PS) visa, Subclass 491, in the state/territory nominated (regional) stream. The applicant nominated the occupation of Finance Manager. The core of the dispute revolved around whether the applicant had provided a bogus document or false or misleading information in relation to her application, specifically concerning her claimed employment history. The decision was made by R. Skaros, Senior Member.

The legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the applicant met the requirements of Public Interest Criterion (PIC) 4020(1), which prohibits the provision of bogus documents or false or misleading information in relation to a visa application or a previous visa held within 12 months. The Tribunal also considered whether there were any compelling or compassionate circumstances that would justify waiving this criterion under PIC 4020(4). The definition of "bogus document" under section 5(1) of the Migration Act 1958 and "information that is false or misleading in a material particular" under PIC 4020(5) were central to the determination.

The Tribunal found that the applicant had not provided sufficient evidence to satisfy the requirements of PIC 4020(1). While the applicant claimed employment as a Finance Manager and Accountant, the evidence presented, including payslips and employment contracts, was found to be undetailed and inconsistent, particularly regarding the tasks performed. Furthermore, the applicant had not provided PAYG summaries or declared income, and her incoming passenger cards indicated occupations different from that for which she applied. Although the applicant argued that small businesses, COVID restrictions, and working from home explained these discrepancies, the Tribunal was not satisfied that the provided documents were not bogus or that the information was not false or misleading. The Tribunal also noted that no submissions were made regarding compassionate or compelling circumstances that might warrant a waiver under PIC 4020(4).

Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the Skilled Work Regional (Provisional) (Class PS) visas to the applicant and her secondary applicant, who applied as a member of the family unit.