Kearney (Migration)

This matter concerned an application for a Working Holiday (Temporary) (Class TZ) visa, subclass 417, made by the applicant on 19 October 2020. The applicant declared in his application that he had completed at least six months of specified work in regional Australia with Quenby Viticultural Services between March and August 2020. However, the Department of Home Affairs conducted checks which indicated that the applicant's employer had verified that the applicant had not completed the declared work, suggesting the information provided was false or misleading. The applicant was subsequently invited to comment on this discrepancy, which could lead to a refusal of his visa application under Public Interest Criterion (PIC) 4020(1).

The legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the applicant had provided false or misleading information in his visa application, thereby failing to satisfy PIC 4020(1), and if so, whether there were compassionate or compelling circumstances that justified a waiver of this requirement. The applicant, through his legal representative, contended that he had engaged a third party, 'Lee Hansol', to assist with his visa application due to uncertainty about COVID-19 pandemic concessions. He claimed that this third party, without his knowledge or approval, submitted an application containing false information regarding his work experience. The applicant acknowledged he did not meet the criteria for the visa but requested a waiver of PIC 4020 and the imposition of a non-grant period.

The Tribunal found that the applicant had failed to satisfy PIC 4020(1) as the evidence indicated he had provided, or caused to be provided, false or misleading information in relation to his visa application. The Tribunal noted that the applicant's explanation that a third party prepared the application without his review did not absolve him of responsibility for the false information submitted. The Tribunal concluded that the applicant had not demonstrated that compassionate or compelling circumstances affecting the interests of an Australian citizen, permanent resident, or eligible New Zealand citizen justified granting the visa. Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicant the Working Holiday visa.