Ma (Migration)

This matter concerned an application for a Subclass 186 Employer Nomination (Permanent) visa. The central dispute revolved around whether the applicant had provided a bogus document or false or misleading information in relation to their application, thereby failing to meet Public Interest Criterion (PIC) 4020. The decision was made by Peter Emmerton, a Member of the Tribunal.

The legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the applicant met the requirements of PIC 4020, specifically subclauses (1), (2), (2A), and (2B), as mandated by clause 186.213(1) for the grant of the visa. PIC 4020 generally requires that no bogus documents or false or misleading information have been provided, that the applicant has not had a visa refused due to a failure to meet PIC 4020(1) in the preceding three years, and that the applicant satisfies identity requirements and has not had a visa refused due to a failure to meet PIC 4020(2A) in the preceding ten years. The Tribunal also considered whether any waiver provisions under PIC 4020(4) were applicable, noting that these did not extend to identity requirements.

The Tribunal's reasoning focused on the evidence presented, including various documents such as passports, birth certificates, police clearances, an employment contract, and work references. While acknowledging that a work reference could potentially be false or misleading concerning an applicant's skills, the Tribunal concluded that there was insufficient evidence to establish that the applicant had given, or caused to be given, a bogus document or information that was false or misleading in a material particular. Consequently, the Tribunal found that PIC 4020(2B) was met.

Based on its findings, the Tribunal remitted all the applications for Employer Nomination (Permanent) visas for reconsideration. The direction was that the first named applicant satisfied PIC 4020 for the purposes of clause 186.213(1) and subsequently clause 186.213.