Keegan (Migration)

Keegan (Migration) [2022] AATA 4847 (24 November 2022)
DECISION RECORD
DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division
APPLICANT:  Mr Jake Eoin Keegan
REPRESENTATIVE  Mr Adeel Khan
CASE NUMBER:  2105425
HOME AFFAIRS REFERENCE(S):          BCC2020/2747352
MEMBER:David Crawshay
DATE:24 November 2022
PLACE OF DECISION:  Melbourne
DECISION:The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicant a Working Holiday (Temporary) (Class TZ) visa.

Statement made on 24 November 2022 at 8:47am
CATCHWORDS
MIGRATION – Working Holiday (Temporary) (Class TZ) visa – Subclass 417 (Working Holiday) – false or misleading information in the visa application – bogus documents – specified work in regional Australia – employer reported no record of applicant – compassionate or compelling circumstances – voluntary work – personal support for an Australian family – decision under review affirmed
LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958, ss 5(1), 65, 359
Migration Regulations 1994, Schedule 2, cls 417.211, 417.221; Schedule 4, Public Interest Criterion 4020; r 1.03
CASES
Arora v MIBP [2016] FCAFC 35
Batra v MIAC [2013] FCA 274
Kaur v MIBP [2017] FCAFC 184
Plaintiff M64/2015 v MIBP [2015] HCA 50
Singh v MIBP [2017] FCCA 2461
Any references appearing in square brackets indicate that information has been omitted from this decision pursuant to section 378 of the Migration Act 1958 and replaced with generic information.
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 19 April 2021 to refuse to grant the applicant a Working Holiday (Temporary) (Class TZ) visa under s.65 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (the Act).
The applicant applied for the visa on 2 December 2020. The delegate refused to grant the visa on the basis that the applicant did not satisfy the requirements of cl.417.221 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth) (the Regulations). The delegate found that the applicant did not satisfy Public Interest Criterion (“PIC”) 4020.
The applicant appeared before the Tribunal on 11 October 2022 to give evidence and present arguments. The Tribunal also heard from [Friend A], a friend of the applicant, and Ms Nicole Caffrey, the applicant’s girlfriend. The applicant was represented in relation to the review.
For the following reasons, the Tribunal has concluded that the decision under review should be affirmed.
consideration of claims and evidence
The issue in this review is whether the visa applicant meets PIC 4020 as required by cl.417.221(2)(b) for the grant of the visa. Broadly speaking, this requires that there be no evidence that the applicant has given, or caused to be given, to certain people or authorities, 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). There are additional requirements that need to be met if the applicant is able to satisfy PIC 4020(1).
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 the attachment to this decision.
Has the applicant given, or caused to be given a bogus document, or information that is false or misleading in 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. 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.
Did the applicant give, or cause to be given, information that is false or misleading in a material particular?
The delegate’s decision in this matter relevantly stated as follows in relation to the purported false or misleading information supplied by the applicant:
Department checks indicate that the specified work declared by the applicant may be false or misleading in a material particular, as the above employer has verified the applicant has not completed specified work with them.
This part of the decision and ultimately the delegate’s overall finding were based on a chain of correspondence between the Department and a representative of the applicant’s purported employer, the Trustee for the Willing Workers Trust. By way of clarification, although the applicant nominated a different entity as his employer in his application form dated 2 December 2020 (namely, “United Wholesalers and Growers Pty Ltd”), payslips from the claimed period are in the name of the Trustee for the Willing Workers Trust. Moreover, the ABN given by the applicant in his application form matches that for the Trustee for the Willing Workers Trust, the email address of the employer contact person ends in @willingworkers.com.au and the postcode listed corresponds with the postcode for the Trustee for the Willing Workers Trust on the ABN Lookup website. The Tribunal accepts based on this evidence that the Trustee for the Willing Workers Trust was his purported employer in spite of him listing a different purported employer on his application form.
In response to an email of 18 January 2021 from an officer of the Department seeking verification of, among other things, whether the applicant worked for Willing Workers Trust, the representative of that entity replied as follows in an email of the same date:
We have no records that Jake Eoin KEEGAN worked for Willing Workers Trust
In his application form dated 2 December 2020, the applicant claimed to have worked from 10 February 2020 to 15 June 2020.
In a pre-hearing letter dated 2 September 2022, the Tribunal wrote to the applicant pursuant to s.359A of the Act in the following relevant terms:
Section 376 certificates
The Department file BCC2020/2747352 contains two certificates made pursuant to s.376 of the Migration Act (the Act) (see attached).
First certificate
The first certificate (dated 23 August 2022) states that disclosure of the document with Trim reference number OPD2021/15364 would be contrary to the public interest because:
•    it discloses, or enables a person to ascertain the existence or identity of, a confidential source of information.
•    where information was provided in confidence, the provider of the information has not consented to the disclosure of the information to the review applicant; and
•    it discloses lawful methods for preventing, detecting and investigating breaches or evasions of the law which would or be likely to prejudice the effectiveness of those methods.
The Tribunal finds that two of these reasons are not valid – namely, it would disclose, or enable a person to ascertain, the existence or identity of a confidential source of information, and it was provided “in confidence” and the provider of the information has not consented to its disclosure to the applicant. However, it considers that the remaining reason for its being contrary to the public interest – namely, it would disclose lawful methods for preventing, detecting and investigating breaches or evasions of the law which would be likely to prejudice the effectiveness of those methods – is a valid reason.
However, on this occasion the Tribunal has exercised its discretion under s.376 to disclose the document. To this end, please see attached a copy of the document with redactions made to hide the identity of the Department officer and the employee involved.
…
Second certificate
The second certificate (dated 12 November 2021) covers a document showing an online submission made by an anonymous member of the public dated 31 August 2021. The second certificate states that disclosure of the document with Trim reference number OPD2021/394943 would be contrary to the public interest because it discloses, or enables a person to ascertain the existence or identity of, a confidential source of information. This certificate is also attached.
The Tribunal finds this reason to be valid as it may enable a person to ascertain the identity of the confidential source of information. Moreover, it has chosen not to exercise its discretion to disclose the document the subject of the second certificate but will give the gist of the information contained within the document (where relevant). It will do this under s.359A of the Act below.
…
Invitation to comment on or respond to information
In conducting the review, we are required by the Migration Act 1958 to invite you to comment on or respond to certain information which we consider would, subject to your comments or response, be the reason, or a part of the reason, for affirming the decision under review.
As you have not provided a copy of the delegate’s decision record, the Tribunal will put selected parts of the delegate’s decision to you for your comment or response under s.359A of the Act. It will also put the document the subject of the first s.376 certificate and the gist of the information contained in the document the subject of the second s.376 certificate to you for your comment or response under s.359A.
The particulars of the information are as follows:
•    In a decision of 19 April 2021, a delegate of the Minister found that you did not satisfy Public Interest Criterion (“PIC”) 4020(1) because you provided information that was false or misleading in a material particular and there were no compelling circumstances that affected the interests of Australia or compassionate or compelling circumstances that affected the interests of an Australian citizen, Australian permanent resident or eligible NZ citizen for the purposes of the waiver provision in PIC 4020(4).
•    In that decision, the delegate relevantly stated as follows:
The applicant declared they undertook specified work in the Agriculture, Forestry and Fishing industry with the following employer The Trustee for the Willing Workers Trust; ABN 71337975948 from 10 February 2020 to 15 June 2020 in the 4660 regional postcode area.
…
Department checks indicate that the specified work declared by the applicant may be false or misleading in a material particular, as the above employer has verified the applicant has not completed specified work with them.
…
Based on the evidence and information before the Department I am satisfied that the information submitted to the department is false and misleading in a material particular, as defined in PIC4020(5). Therefore, the applicant does not satisfy PIC4020 (1).
•    In that decision, the delegate stated that you had not raised any compassionate or compelling circumstances for the purposes of PIC 4020(4).
•    In an email of 18 January 2021 (attached), the office manager of Willing Workers relevantly stated as follows:
We have no records that Jake Eoin KEEGAN worked for Willing Workers Trust
•    This email was in response to an email of the same date from an officer of the Department which sought verification about whether you had worked for The Trustee for the Willing Workers Trust.
•    In an online submission dated 31 August 2021, an anonymous member of the public claimed that you had obtained fake wage slips in order to apply for a visa. The member of the public stated that you are working in Sydney. The member of the public claimed that he knew you.
This information is relevant to the review because it suggests that you have given or caused to be given information that is false or misleading in a material particular when you nominated that you had undertaken specified work with an employer in Regional Australia. This information is also relevant to the review because it suggests that there are no compassionate or compelling circumstances that would enliven the waiver provision in PIC 4020(4).
If the Tribunal relies on this information when making its decision, it may cause it to not be satisfied that you meet the requirements of PIC 4020.
[emphasis in original]
The letter attached the documents mentioned therein – comprising the s.376 non-disclosure certificate dated 12 November 2021, the s.376 non-disclosure certificate dated 23 August 2022 and the email of 18 January 2021 from the office manager of Willing Workers to an officer of the Department.
By letter of 22 September 2022, the applicant responded to the Tribunal’s invitation. Among other things, the applicant in his letter stated that he was unable to complete regional work. The applicant said that he entrusted the submission of his application to a friend of a friend. The bulk of the letter sought to explain why the waiver provision in PIC 4020(4) should be exercised in his favour. Finally, the letter stated that the applicant did not have any comment to make on the two s.376 certificates.
At hearing, the applicant admitted that he did not work for the Trustee for the Willing Workers Trust. The Tribunal places significant weight on this clear admission from the applicant.
The Tribunal has considered the information in front of it, including the above information. It accepts evidence showing that a representative from the Trustee for the Willing Workers Trust verified that the applicant had not worked for that entity. It accepts that this representative was in a position to be able to verify the applicant’s claims. As a result, it accepts the information as given and gives it substantial weight.
The Tribunal has considered the anonymous allegation of 31 August 2021. While it notes that the person who submitted the allegation chose to keep his or her name anonymous, the essence of the allegation – namely, that the applicant had obtained fake payslips to give the impression that he was undertaking the required work – is substantiated by other sources, most notably by the representative of the Trustee for the Willing Workers Trust who verified that the applicant had not worked for the entity and by the applicant when he admitted that the payslips were fake (see below). Thus, while the Tribunal is unable to ascertain the identity of the individual giving the allegation or the motivation for doing so, it nonetheless gives the information contained in the allegation some weight due to this level of substantiation.
Based on the findings made above, the Tribunal finds that the applicant gave, or caused to be given, information that was false or misleading when information was submitted to the Department claiming that he had performed specified work during the period from 10 February 2020 to 15 June 2020 with the Trustee for the Willing Workers Trust, including in his application form. Furthermore, the circumstances in which this information was given – i.e. that the applicant went to a friend-of-a-friend and ended up paying money to that person to do what he could – leads the Tribunal to find that the applicant was indifferent to the fraud that would occur at the very least if not actively involved in it. It finds that the applicant’s conduct had the necessary element of purposeful falsity.
Lastly, the claimed information (if true) would have been relevant to whether the applicant was able to satisfy cl.417.211(5) where an applicant is applying for a Second Working Holiday visa.
As such, it is information that is false or misleading in a material particular.
Did the applicant give, or cause to be given, bogus documents?
There is an additional issue about whether the applicant gave, or caused to be given, bogus documents when he submitted 18 payslips that purported to be from Willing Workers for the period from February-to-June 2020. At hearing, the applicant admitted that he gave bogus documents and when asked if these bogus documents were the payslips from the Trustee for the Willing Workers Trust, he replied that they were. The Tribunal accords substantial weight to the applicant’s clear admission in this regard.
Based on the above findings, the Tribunal finds that the applicant gave, or caused to be given, documents that purported to have been, but were not, issued in respect of him. He has therefore given, or caused to be given, bogus documents. There is no requirement under the legislation that these bogus documents be relevant or material although clearly they would be relevant to a determination of whether or not he completed specified work under cl.417.211(5).
Therefore, the applicant does not meet PIC 4020(1).
Should the requirements of PIC 4020(1) or (2) be waived?
The requirements of PIC 4020(1) and (2) may be waived where there are compelling circumstances that affect the interests of Australia, or where there are compassionate or compelling circumstances that affect the interests of an Australian citizen, an Australian permanent resident, or an eligible New Zealand citizen (as defined in r.1.03), that justify the granting of the visa. The decision-maker must first be satisfied that there are such circumstances, then must consider whether to exercise the discretion to waive the requirements, having regard to those circumstances: Kaur v MIBP [2017] FCAFC 184.
The expressions “compelling circumstances” and “compassionate or compelling circumstances” are not defined for these purposes. To be compelling, the circumstances must force or drive the decision-maker irresistibly to be satisfied: see Plaintiff M64/2015 v MIBP [2015] HCA 50. The ordinary meaning of “compassionate” relates to feelings of sympathy, sorrow, pity or concern for others.
In the applicant’s response letter dated 22 September 2022, he made several claims against the relevant circumstances.
The applicant’s present employment and potential work capacity
The applicant firstly claimed that he continued to contribute to the Australian economy and added value to the community through his employment as an Uber driver, having previously been employed as a labourer and truck driver until he left the job due to injury. He identified these reasons to be “compassionate”, although the Tribunal has identified that these circumstances should properly be considered against the requirement for there to be “compelling” circumstances that affect the interests of Australia. He did not expand on this claim at hearing.
The Tribunal has had regard to Department policy when assessing whether there are compelling circumstances that affect the interests of Australia.[1] It accepts that the applicant may currently be working as an Uber driver and that he may have previously worked in construction. However, while having ride share drivers may be helpful to Australia’s economy, the applicant has not demonstrated that Australia would miss out on a significant benefit that the applicant could contribute to its development if the visa were not granted, or that its trade or business opportunities would be adversely affected or its relationship with a foreign government damaged.[2] Having considered the applicant’s circumstances, the Tribunal is not satisfied that they are compelling circumstances affecting the interests of Australia.
[1] Policy – Migration Act – Visa cancellation instructions – Exclusion periods – Assessing and deciding visa applications – Compelling circumstances.
[2] Ibid.
In submissions dated 12 October 2022, the applicant’s representative argued that the applicant offered potential skilled labour in the future that was in the best interests of Australia, relying on the reasoning in Singh v MIBP [2017] FCCA 2461 where the judge held that the word “interests” was intended to have a broad meaning that included any present or future state of affairs that was or might be of benefit or to the advantage of the relevant person. Although the Tribunal accepts the correctness of this, it does not accept that the applicant’s potential employment as a single worker in the construction industry would constitute compelling circumstances again in light of Department policy.
The applicant’s community work

The applicant also claimed in his letter of 22 September 2022 that he was contributing to the community through volunteering in a homeless programme called Will2Live and through being a member of the Penrith Gaels Football Club. Again, he characterised these as being compassionate reasons to waive the PIC 4020 requirements. However, and again, the Tribunal considers that these should be properly considered against the requirement for there to be “compelling” circumstances that affect the interests of Australia as neither the applicant nor his representative has identified any specific Australian citizen, permanent resident or eligible NZ citizen who would be affected.
Documents provided in a “tender bundle” of 25 September 2022 include a letter dated 19 September 2022 from the CEO of Will2Live which substantiated that the applicant provided support one-to-two times-a-month. The author of the letter stated that the applicant gave his all when participating, and that he would be a great loss to the organisation. The author concluded by stating his belief that it would be in Australia’s best interests for his visa to be remitted.
A letter dated 21 September 2022 from the President of the Penrith Gaels Football Club stated that the applicant facilitated their training sessions and was instrumental in helping the club raise funds through fundraising events. The author also said that the applicant helped new players find work or suitable accommodation.
At hearing, the applicant answered in similar terms when asked about his roles at those two organisations.
The Tribunal has considered the information in front of it. It accepts that the applicant is involved with Will2Live and Penrith Gaels in the manner set out by him and by the letters of support from members of those organisations. While his contributions to the local community are to be applauded, the Tribunal does not consider these to be compelling circumstances affecting the interests of Australia. Again, the applicant has not demonstrated that Australia would miss out on a significant benefit that the applicant could contribute to its development if the visa were not granted, or that its trade or business opportunities would be adversely affected or its relationship with a foreign government damaged.
The applicant’s relationship with Nicole Caffrey
The applicant set out the circumstances relating to his relationship with Ms Nicole Caffrey, whom he described as his partner. A relationship certificate was submitted in support of the relationship, and the Tribunal was able to interview Ms Caffrey at hearing, who substantiated that she and the applicant had been in a relationship and were currently living together. Based on this evidence, it accepts that the applicant has been in a relationship with Ms Caffrey for around one-and-a-half-to-two years and that they are living together.
However, and based on the information in front of it, the Tribunal finds that Ms Caffrey is not an Australian citizen, Australian permanent resident or eligible NZ citizen. Therefore, her interests are not to be considered for the purposes of ascertaining compassionate or compelling circumstances.
The applicant’s assistance to [Friend A]
The applicant submitted in his letter of 22 September 2022 that he has developed a personal connection with a friend by the name of [Friend A] who is suffering from a number of health [conditions]. He claimed to regularly support [Friend A] with a helping hand or emotional or psychological support. He said that she relies heavily on him for physical and emotional support, for example by assisting her to travel to and from medical appointments as she struggles to drive.
At hearing, the applicant made additional claims that he drives [Friend A’s] daughter to school and helps to babysit her – something that [Friend A] spoke to in her testimony. She also spoke to the same details as the applicant in relation to him driving her to and from appointments. The applicant and [Friend A] both told the Tribunal that [Friend A’s] daughter is living with two [health] conditions and anxiety.
The Tribunal notes that the applicant and [Friend A] gave substantially similar testimony in relation to [Friend A’s] and her daughter’s health conditions and in terms of the help the applicant purports to give her. As a result, it accepts that the applicant provides support to [Friend A] in the manner claimed by him. Moreover, it accepts based on a current passport that [Friend A] is an Australian citizen who was born in Australia and that her daughter is most likely an Australian citizen too.
Having accepted the evidence as given, the Tribunal accepts that the circumstances described therein, being the continued help that the applicant offers [Friend A] and her daughter as well as the potential for this help to be withdrawn if the visa were refused and the applicant to go back to Ireland, are compassionate circumstances as they invoke sympathy and concern for these two individuals. It is not satisfied, however, that they rise to the level of being compelling circumstances as they do not force it irresistibly to be satisfied. That said, the requirement to engage the exercise of the waiver is for there to be compelling or compassionate circumstances and not both.
The exercise of the waiver
Having found in this way, the last step is to ascertain whether the compassionate circumstances above justify waiving PIC 4020(1) and granting the visa.[3] The exercise of the waiver is discretionary and involves the Tribunal weighing these compassionate circumstances against other factors.
[3] Kaur v MIBP [2017] FCAFC 184, [26].
The Tribunal considers that these factors include the public policy imperative of PIC 4020, which is to promote the public interest of ensuring that an applicant does not give bogus documents or information that he or she knows to be false or misleading or of which he or she is indifferent to the truthfulness. In this regard, the Tribunal has considered that the applicant has perpetrated the fraud in two important ways – firstly, by providing information that is false or misleading in a material particular on his application form which is a document in which he makes important declarations including that he has provided “complete and correct information in every detail”, and secondly, by causing to be submitted bogus documents in the form of numerous fake payslips. In this way, the fraud is not to be regarded as inadvertent but was very much deliberate. The claim by the applicant that the fraud was done on his behalf by a “friend of a friend” does not alter this fact.
The Tribunal has considered the circumstances in which the fraud occurred to ascertain if these mitigated the fraud and if so, to what extent. It notes in this regard that the applicant claims to have injured himself soon after arriving in Australia while undertaking construction work in Sydney and to have then had an extended recovery period until around June-2020 when he tried to go to Toowoomba but the borders shut.
At hearing, the Tribunal put to the applicant that this timeline would have left him six months until his visa ceased to be able to undertake the specified work. He replied that this was around the time when COVID-19 was “very bad”, and he was trying to find jobs in NSW but it was hard. He said that he found out about a job in Coffs Harbour in December 2020. The Tribunal challenged the applicant over his statements as it reasoned that fruit still needed to be picked, and the supply of potential workers for this work would have gone down due to the border restrictions. The applicant did not provide any response.
The Tribunal has considered the information in front of it. While it accepts based on the documentary evidence provided by the applicant that he injured his back in early-2020 and required a lengthy period of rehabilitation until June 2020, it does not accept that this injury precluded him from completing the specified work as he still had six remaining months in which to complete this work – being the period from June 2020 until December 2020. Moreover, the Tribunal is not satisfied that he was unable to complete the specified work during that six-month period because of COVID-19 and the attendant lockdowns, or because of difficulties in finding work. Although border restrictions may have posed logistical challenges to his ability to travel out of NSW, he was still able to choose work in NSW itself. In relation to his claim that it was difficult to find work, the Tribunal finds that this is not substantiated by any information provided by him. His claim is given no weight and the Tribunal finds that these circumstances do not mitigate the fraud.
In the absence of circumstances that mitigate the fraud perpetrated by or on behalf of the applicant, the Tribunal finds that it weighs heavily against the exercise of the waiver.
Having weighed the compassionate circumstances that would affect [Friend A] and her daughter if the applicant were to leave Australia against the public policy considerations and the way that they relate specifically to the applicant’s matter, the Tribunal finds that the waiver in PIC 4020(4) should not be exercised.
As the applicant does not satisfy PIC 4020(1) and the waiver in PIC 4020(4) should not be exercised, he does not satisfy PIC 4020 for the purposes of cl.417.221(2)(b).
decision
The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicant a Working Holiday (Temporary) (Class TZ) visa.
David Crawshay
Member
ATTACHMENT
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.
…

[2022] AATA 4847

24 November 2022

Key Legal Topics

Areas of Law

Immigration

Administrative Law

Statutory Interpretation

Legal Concepts

Judicial Review

Procedural Fairness

Statutory Construction

Natural Justice

Jurisdiction