Lacksanangam (Migration)

This matter concerned an application for a Student (Temporary) (Class TU) visa, subclass 500, made by Mr Lacksanangam. The dispute arose when the Department of Home Affairs determined that Mr Lacksanangam had provided a "bogus document" as defined by the Migration Act 1958, thereby failing to meet Public Interest Criterion (PIC) 4020 as required by the Migration Regulations 1994. The decision under review was made by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether Mr Lacksanangam had provided a bogus document to the Minister in relation to his visa application, and consequently, whether he satisfied PIC 4020(1). PIC 4020 generally 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 held within the preceding 12 months. The Tribunal was required to consider the evidence presented regarding two employment letters provided by Mr Lacksanangam, one from Global Trading & Consulting Co., Ltd. and another from Seaworld Shipping Limited Partnership, both dated 9 August 2019.

The Tribunal reasoned that while the Department's verification process concluded that the Global Trading letter was "non-genuine," the circumstances surrounding Mr Lacksanangam's employment indicated a potential mistaken identity of the employer rather than a deliberate attempt to mislead. It was found that Mr Lacksanangam was employed by Seaworld Shipping and was assigned to work for Global Trading from time to time while remaining on Seaworld Shipping's payroll. He was never directly employed by Global Trading before May 2017. Given these findings, the Tribunal concluded that the matter should be remitted for reconsideration.

Consequently, the Tribunal remitted the application for a Student (Temporary) (Class TU) visa, subclass 500, for reconsideration. The direction was that Mr Lacksanangam meets PIC 4020 for the purposes of clause 500.217(1) of the Regulations, acknowledging the complexities of the employment verification and the potential for mistaken identity.