Kuir (Migration)

[2023] AATA 3594

Kuir (Migration) [2023] AATA 3594 (11 October 2023)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

REVIEW APPLICANT:  Mr Kuir Malual Kuir

VISA APPLICANTS:  Ms Adau Deng Gak Mayen
Master Garang Kuir Malual Kuir
Mr Malual Kuir Malual Kuir

REPRESENTATIVE:  Ms Abby Hamdan (MARN: 0401329)

CASE NUMBER:  2111111

HOME AFFAIRS REFERENCE(S):          BCC2018/3986652

MEMBER:Peter Emmerton

DATE:11 October 2023

PLACE OF DECISION:  Adelaide

DECISION:The Tribunal affirms the decisions not to grant the applicants Partner (Provisional) (Class UF) visas.

Statement made on 11 October 2023 at 3:27pm

CATCHWORDS

MIGRATION – Partner (Provisional) (Class UF) visa – Subclass 309 (Partner (Provisional)) – bogus document – inconsistent death certificates – compassionate or compelling circumstances affecting an Australian citizen – separation of family – mental and emotional health issues – decision under review affirmed          

LEGISLATION

Migration Act 1958, ss 5, 65, 359
Migration Regulations 1994, Schedule 2, cls 309.311, 309.325; 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
Trivedi v MIBP [2014] FCAFC 42

STATEMENT OF DECISION AND REASONS

APPLICATION FOR REVIEW

1. This is an application for review of a decision made by a delegate of the Minister for Home Affairs on 8 July 2021 to refuse to grant the applicants Partner (Provisional) (Class UF) visas under s 65 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (the Act).

2. The applicants applied for the visas on 28 June 2018. The delegate refused to grant the visas on the basis that the first named applicant (the applicant) did not satisfy the requirements of cl 309.225(1) of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth) (the Regulations) because they were not satisfied the applicant met the requirements of PIC 4020.

3. The review applicant appeared before the Tribunal via Teams video on 11 October 2023 to give evidence and present arguments. The Tribunal also received oral evidence via Teams video from Adau Deng Gak Mayen.

4. The review applicant was represented in relation to the review.

5. For the following reasons, the Tribunal has concluded that the decision under review should be affirmed.

   CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE

6. The Tribunal has read and carefully considered the evidence presented to the Department and the delegate.

   • Genetic testing documents of Sonic Genetics
   • Statutory Declaration-Emma Solly, Administration Manager of DNA Labs 2 May 2019
   • Statutory Declarations of Adau Deng Gak, undated
   • Statutory Declaration of Kuir Malual Kuir, 5 June 2019
   • Representatives’ submission of 6 June 2018
   • Statutory Declaration of Gak Kon Atem, Bus Driver, 22 June 2022
   • Statutory Declaration of Kuir Malual Kuir, 7 August 2019
   • Certificate of death, Rebecca Nyandeng G. 30 July 2019
   • Further Representative submission of 8 August 2019
   • Statutory Declaration of Kuir Malual Kuir Travel History, 19 March 2019
   • Statutory Declaration of Awan Akuen Bol, Student, 20 June 2018
   • Citizenship certificate of Deng Kuir Malual, date of citizenship 4 January 2019
   • Birth certificate of Kuir Malual Garang, Uganda, 18 September 2017
   • Marriage Certificate of Applicants, Paradise Faith Ministries, married on 26 May 2014
   • Birth certificate of Malual Kuir Malual, Uganda, 8 November 2003
   • Birth Certificate of Adit Kuir Malual, 24 February 2021
   • Various photographs
   • Departmental application forms
   • Department requests for further information
   • APPROXIMATELY 1000 PAGES OF PHONE RECORDS
   • Approximately 400 pages (including duplicates), of money transfers from a general timeframe of February 2019 and March 2017. A random selection of 20 pages notes an average of approximately $215 AUD per transfer

7. The Tribunal has read and carefully considered the evidence presented to it prior to the hearing.

   • Receipt slip of St James Domiciliary Home, 8 August 2012, Kampala
   • Uganda Private Midwives Association – Record of Child Birth (Kuir Malual Kuir) 15 January 2013
   • Uganda Private Midwives Association- Antenatal Card
   • Discharge document of St James Domiciliary Home, 16 January 2013
   • Admission form of St James Domiciliary Home, 14 January 2013

8. The issue in this review is whether the visa applicant meets Public Interest Criterion 4020 (PIC 4020) as required by cl 309.225(1) 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 3 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).

9. 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?

10. 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.

11. 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.

12. 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 applicant’s claims

13. The applicant, Ms Adau Deng Gak Mayen, submitted an application for a visa on 28 June 2018 on the grounds of being in a spousal relationship with an Australian citizen, Mr Kuir Malual Kuir, the sponsor). Mr Kuir Malual Kuir lodged a sponsorship in support of the application. The applicant claims she is married to the sponsor.

14. The applicant declared in her application Malual Kuir Malual Kuir, (DOB provided) and Garang Kuir Malual Kuir, (DOB provided) are her stepchildren, by virtue of them being the claimed biological children of her sponsor. Both of their Birth Certificates were provided in support of the claimed relationship.

15. The applicant stated in her application the sponsor was in a relationship with Rebecca Nyadeng, (DOB provided), that began in 2001(date provided) and ceased in 2008 (date provided) when Rebecca Nyadeng is claimed to have died. The deceased Ms Nadeng is claimed to be the mother of the two dependent applicants.

16. As stated, the sponsor claims to have been in a relationship with Rebecca Nyandeng which ceased I September 2008 upon her death. A Death Certificate claimed to have been issued by the Republic of Kenya was provided with the visa application. It stated death occurred on 11 September 2008 from ‘…Internal head injury with skull fracture due to motor vehicle accident…’. The Department upon enquiry to the issuing authority found that the issuing number does not exist in the Register of Deaths in their office. As it was not issued by the correct issuing authority it is counterfeit. The Tribunal has concluded therefore Rebecca Nyandeng’s Death Certificate which is a material particular to the assessment of this application, is considered to be a bogus document under Public Interest Criterion 4020, (PIC 4020).

17. The Department wrote to the applicant through her migration agent on 9 July 2019. They invited her to comment on the findings surrounding the Death Certificate for Rebecca Nyandeng. She was offered the opportunity to specify if she believed that there are any compelling circumstances affecting the interests of Australia, or compassionate or compelling circumstances affecting the interests of an Australian citizen, an Australian permanent resident or an eligible New Zealand citizen, to justify the waiver of any or all of paragraphs 4020(1)(a) or (b) and subclause 4020(2) to justify the granting of the visa.

18. On 8 August 2019, the Department received a response via the migration agent to the natural justice letter. It included:

    • Another Death Certificate for Rebecca Nyandeng
    • A Statutory Declaration from the sponsor signed 7 August 2019
    •  A letter/submission from the migration agent dated 8 August 2019.

19. The 2 Death Certificates state different places of death. The sponsor claimed this took place due to the Constitutional change which resulted in new Districts being formed. The Tribunal notes the delegate’s assessment that the claimed changes were not aligned with what had happened at the time the districts were changed. Under questioning during the hearing no satisfactory explanation was given for the discrepancies. No attempt was made to refer to the different locations stated on the Death Certificates or provide a hypothesis as to how this occurred. It was claimed by the sponsor that he was not there, so he didn’t know.

20. The Tribunal notes that the new Death Certificate was issued by the Civil Registry Department where such documents are issued. This indicates that if the second certificate is considered genuine the first is a counterfeit certificate. The Sponsor admitted the first certificate was a fraudulent document several time throughout the hearing but always maintained he was not aware of that fact at the time it was submitted in the visa application.

21. The first Death Certificate states that Rebecca Nyandeng died in ‘Nakuru General Hosp’ whilst the second death certificate states that she died in E/Ravine. These are two geographically separate places. Eldama Ravine is in Baringo County, far from Nakuru County, where Nakuru General Hospital is situated. No acceptable reason was supplied during the hearing to explain this difference.

22. The first Death Certificate states that Rebecca Nyandeng’s cause of death is an Internal head injury with skull fracture due to a motor vehicle accident whilst the second Death Certificate states that her cause of death was Malaria. When questioned the sponsor stated his wife had malaria for a long time. The hospital arrived at a different cause of death from the original certificate following further investigation. The Tribunal believes it unlikely that further investigation would have been undertaken following death by road trauma. Many people in Africa unfortunately live with malaria. It is not credible that the cause of death following a road accident which resulted in head trauma which was identified at the time as the cause of death, would subsequently be reassessed as malaria causing the demise of the patient.

23. The Tribunal has observed there are no supporting documents presented from the doctors who are claimed to have attended to Rebecca Nyandeng at her claimed time of death and who are claimed to have issued letters to support the application of her claimed death.

24. An explanation was offered to the Department and the Tribunal that the variances observed were because the original certificate was issued by the Hospital. The Tribunal was not convinced that this assertion was correct.

25. The applicant has stated she did not realise the certificate was fraudulent at the time of submission of her application. The applicant repeated this assertion under questioning in the hearing. The sponsor also stated that to get things done in Africa you needed to pay some money. The claim was made there was no intention to purposely deceive. It is not possible to ascertain the knowledge of the applicant at the time of her application with any certainty, however the Tribunal has concluded that it is likely the sponsor was aware of the origin of the original certificate and therefore the subsequent deception. It may be possible that the applicant was aware of the deception, but no evidence exists to support such a hypothesis.

26. The migration agent submitted to the Department in their submission in response to the natural justice letter from the Department dated 9 July 2019, ‘…We acknowledge that it is not necessary for the Minister 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 the applicant is necessary to attract the operation of the provision…’

27. As supported by the case of Trivedi v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection, it is not necessary for the sponsor or the applicant to have committed the act of fraud, merely a person.

28. The migration agent quoted the case of Trivedi v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (2014) Honourable Justice Buchanan and concludes that ‘…We submit that there was no element of fraud in this case. The death certificate was issued from the hospital. Neither the applicant nor the sponsor intended to fraud the department. Therefore, we submit that the main applicant’s action shouldn’t activate PIC 4020’.

29. The Tribunal has formed a different view, an element of fraud or deception was perpetrated. The provision of 2 completely different Death Certificates from 2 different sources indicating different locations and causes of death indicates that at least one was fraudulent, it is possible that both are, although less likely. The Tribunal has concluded that it is likely the sponsor was aware of the deception. As already stated, it is also possible that the applicant was aware of how the certificate may have been obtained but the Tribunal is less certain of this possibility as it can’t be tested. It accepts her statement that she was not present at that time. It is clear to the Tribunal that the person who issued the fraudulent document was aware it was fraudulent. Therefore, a person did undertake a fraudulent action although not necessarily the applicants.

30. The Tribunal finds that a bogus document has been presented to support this application. It is a material particular in relation to the death of Rebecca Nyandeng, who is the claimed mother of the applicant’s claimed stepchildren and are dependents on this application.

31. The Tribunal concludes the applicant has provided false and misleading information to the Department. Therefore, the applicant does not meet PIC 4020 (1) for the purposes of clause 309.225 (1) of Schedule 2 to the Regulations.

32. Therefore, the applicant does not meet PIC 4020.

    Disclosure of adverse information at a hearing

33. The Tribunal formally made a disclosure of adverse information at a hearing under SS.359AA in which the following was stated.

34. ‘I am now going to put to you formally under the law under Sub Section 359AA some pieces of information that I have. This is information that would be the reason or part of the reason for affirming the decision under review.

    I will also explain to you why the information is relevant to my decision. Please tell me if you don't understand the information or if you don't understand why it is relevant.

    I will then ask you to comment on or respond to that information. You don't have to respond now you can ask for more time to comment or respond to the information. You already know about most of this information, I am however required to put it to you formally.

    Let me take you through the information and I shall ask you to comment or respond to that information.

    The information is as follows         

35. The Tribunal has formed a view, that an element of fraud or deception was perpetrated in the application process. The provision of 2 completely different Death Certificates from 2 different sources indicating different locations and causes of death indicates that at least one was fraudulent, it is possible that both are. The Tribunal has concluded that it is likely the sponsor was aware of the deception, it is also possible that the applicant was aware.

36. The Tribunal finds that a bogus document has been presented to support this application It is a material particular in relation to the death of Rebecca Nyandeng, who is the claimed mother of the applicant’s claimed stepchildren and are dependents on this application.

37. The Tribunal concludes the applicant has provided false and misleading information to the Department. Therefore, the applicant does not meet PIC 4020 (1) for the purposes of clause 309.225 (1) of Schedule 2 to the Regulations.

    The information is relevant because

38. This has subsequently, lead the Tribunal to the belief that this is the reason or part of the reason to affirm the delegate's decision. The Tribunal has determined that this is relevant because as it has determined that bogus documents in the form of a falsified Death Certificate had been provided in the visa applicant's application, that is you, subsequently the provisions in Public Interest Criterion 4020(1) were not satisfied. That means that the requirements for your 309-visa could not be satisfied because c1.309.225(1) was not satisfied. In simple terms your visa therefore subsequently can-not be approved as c1.309.225(1) is not satisfied because of your failure to meet the requirements in Public Interest Criterion 4020 or commonly called PIC 4020.

39. I will now ask you to comment on or respond to that information. You don't have to respond now you can ask for more time to comment or respond to the information.’

40. The sponsor stated he wished to comment and again stated that he didn’t know the first Death Certificate was fraudulent. He raised the issue of the undesirability of separating the family and the associated potential negative emotional impacts upon the children which the Tribunal appreciates.

41. He stated that he is proud of his work in Australia and is a contributing member of the community and the Tribunal sees no evidence to the contrary on this issue.

42. The Representative requested a 5-minute recess, to confer with her clients. The Tribunal suggested 10 minutes and the hearing resumed at 2 minutes after noon. The recording was also terminated at that time and recommenced 10 minutes later when the hearing resumed.

43. Upon resumption the sponsor stated once again it was undesirable to separate the children of the combined family and reminded the Tribunal that 2 of the children were Australian Citizens. He raised concerns regarding the potential mental and emotional health issues associated with family separation. The Tribunal empathises with this concern. It was again reiterated that the sponsor was unaware at the time of the visa application that the first Death Certificate was fraudulent. He once again stated that he is a contributing member of his community and proud of his work. The Tribunal refers back to the earlier comment made by him where he indicated that in order to get things done in Africa you need to pay.

1. The visa applicant also stated the undesirability to separate the family members and her desire to unite the family in Australia so that she could care for them all.  

2. It is clearly established by the evidence before the Tribunal and the inability of the applicants to provide evidence that counteracts the assertion that a false or counterfeit Death Certificate was knowingly provided in the application process. Therefore, an element of fraud or deception by some person has occurred, as is necessary to enliven the operation of the PIC 4020(1) provision: Trivedi v MIBP [2014] FCAFC 42.

3. Subsequently, the applicant does not meet the requirements in PIC 4020(1).

   Should the requirements of PIC 4020(1) or (2) be waived?

4. 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.

5. 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.

6. For the following reasons, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the requirements should be waived.

7. The Tribunal takes the matter of false or misleading statements, or the provision of false physical evidence or information given during a visa application process very seriously. These documents, associated information gathering, and verification procedures provide one of the key pillars to our border security and as such the Tribunal views the legal responsibilities associated with them as sacrosanct.

8. The Tribunal has considered the Statutory Declarations presented and the submission made by the applicant’s legal representative dated 8 august 2019. In the submission the Tribunal has noted the following assertions.

9. ‘We submit that the applicant's action should not attract the operation of PTC 4020 for the reasons mentioned above and based on the authorities stated above. However, if you do not agree with our submission, we urge you to waive PIC 4020 (1) the requirements based on consideration of the best Interest of the Australian Citizens (members of the same family unit). We advise that the main applicant's children Garang Kuir MALUAL born 15 January 2017 and Deng Garang Kuir MALUAL born 01 December 2014 were granted the Australian citizenship in January 2019. We advise that a decision not to waive would result in the separation of the immediate family members. We submit that the separation of the family will not be in the interest of the sponsor and the two Australian citizens. We are instructed that the emotional and psychological impact of the family's continuing separation on the sponsor who is an Australian citizen is severe. Also, to separate the main applicant and the dependant applicant from their siblings who are Australian citizen will break the family unit and will have severe effect on the children. Accordingly, we urge you to waive the requirements of PIC 4020 (1).’

10. The Tribunal notes that no evidence has been provided from suitably qualified professionals to indicate that the possible separation would cause emotional or psychological impact resulting from the partners and the family as a whole being separated. This is not an uncommon occurrence faced by many families. The Tribunal accepts that this may not be the most desirable course of action. It additionally observes that no further submission was made to it prior to the hearing on this topic.

11. The Tribunal notes that no evidence has been tendered to indicate that the sponsor could not relocate to be with his family if he so desired. The Tribunal accepts that this may not be the preferred option. However, that is a choice to be made by the sponsor and applicant should they believe it to be desirable for the sponsor to be located with the family. It notes that none of his children have resided in Australia, and they are currently all cared for in Uganda with his current wife whilst residing in the home he claims is his house. The Tribunal observes that he has spent more than 22 months, (across 5 trips), in Uganda since 28 February 2014. This clearly indicates he is able to live in Uganda if he chooses in order to unite his family unit.

12. There is no evidence presented to the Tribunal indicating compelling circumstances affecting the interests of Australia. The Tribunal does however acknowledge that the sponsor appears to be a contributing member of Australian society.

13. The Tribunal is not satisfied that there are compelling circumstances that have been presented that affect the interests of Australia or any compassionate or compelling circumstances that affect the interests of an Australian citizen, an Australian permanent resident or an eligible New Zealand citizen that would justify the grant of this visa. Therefore, the Tribunal finds the applicant does not satisfy PIC 4020(4) and does not waive the requirements of PIC 4020(1).

14. Therefore, the requirements of PIC 4020(1) should not be waived.

15. On the basis of the above, the applicant does not satisfy PIC 4020 for the purposes of cl 309.225(1).

    Assessment against other streams

16. In accordance with the Migration Regulations, the Tribunal assessed whether the criteria for the grant of a visa within any other stream within this visa subclass have been satisfied.

17. The applicant has only sought to satisfy the criteria for a Partner (Provisional) (Class UF) visa (309) visa. No claims have been made in respect of the other visa streams. As the requirements that must be met by a person seeking the visa in the other streams have not been met, the decision under review must be affirmed.

    Secondary applicants

18. The secondary applicants Master Garang Kuir Malual Kuir and Mr Malual Kuir Malual Kuir are not able to meet the secondary criterion of clause 309.311 by virtue of being a dependant or member of the family unit of a person who, having satisfied the primary criteria, is the holder of a Partner (Provisional) (Class UF) (Subclass 309) visa.

    DECISION

19. The Tribunal affirms the decisions not to grant the applicants Partner (Provisional) (Class UF) visas.

    Peter Emmerton
    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.

    …