Martinaj (Migration)
[2025] ARTA 925
•14 May 2025
MARTINAJ (MIGRATION) [2025] ARTA 925 (14 MAY 2025)
DECISION AND
REASONS FOR DECISION
Applicants:Mrs Mare Martinaj
Mr Fatmir Martinaj
Miss Luna Martinaj
Miss Ellie MartinajRespondent: Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs
Tribunal Number: 2425663
Tribunal:General Member T. Quinn
Place:Melbourne
Date: 14 May 2025
Decision:The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicants Student (Temporary) (Class TU) visas.
Statement made on 14 May 2025 at 1:12pm
CATCHWORDS
MIGRATION – Student (Temporary) (Class TU) visa – Subclass 500 (Student) – incorrect information in the visa application – multiple previous refused applications – no compelling circumstances – decision under review affirmed
LEGISLATION
Administrative Review Tribunal (Consequential and Transitional Provisions No. 1) Act 2024
Migration Act 1958, ss 5(1), 65, 338, 347
Migration Regulations 1994, Schedule 2 cls 500.212, 500.217; Schedule 4, Public Interest Criterion 4020; r 1.03CASES
“T” v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2000] FCA 467
Arora v MIBP [2016] FCAFC 35Batra v MIAC [2013] FCA 274
Chand v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (unreported, Federal Court of Australia, von Doussa, Moore and Sackville JJ, 7 November 1997)
Kaur v MIBP [2014] FCCA 1264
Kaur v MIBP [2017] FCAFC 184
Kumar v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2020] FCAFC 16
Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs v Rajalingham (1999) 93 FCR 220
Mudiyanselage v MIAC [2012] FMCA 887
Nejad v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [1999] FCA 1827
Nejad v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2000] FCA 741
Plaintiff M64/2015 v MIBP [2015] HCA 50
Sein v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (2001) 114 FCR 370
Selvadurai v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (1994) 34 ALR 347
Singh v MIAC [2012] FMCA 145
Singh v MIBP [2018] FCCA 1136
Trivedi v MIBP [2014] FCAFC 42Vyas v MIMAC [2013] FCCA 1226
Wang v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2000] FCA 963
STATEMENT OF REASONS
APPLICATION FOR REVIEW
On 28 November 2022, the first three applicants applied for Student visas (the visa) with the first named applicant (’the applicant’) proposing to undertake study in Australia as the primary visa holder and the second and third named applicants as secondary visa holders (‘the application’).[1]
[1]Specifically, a Student (Temporary) (Class TU) visa (‘the visa’) under section 65 of the Migration Act 1958 (‘the Act’). At the time of application, Class TU contained two subclasses: Subclass 500 (Student) and Subclass 590 (Student Guardian). The primary applicant applied for the former and none of the applicants claim to meet the criteria for a Subclass 590 (Student Guardian) visa.
On 6 February 2023, a delegate of the Minister for Home Affairs refused to grant the application on the basis that the primary applicant did not satisfy the genuine temporary entrant requirements in relation to student visas.[2]
[2]See clause 500.212 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994 (‘the Regulations’) which requires that student visa applicants be genuine applicants for entry and stay as a student.
On 6 November 2023, the fourth applicant was born.
On 12 February 2024, the decision of 6 February 2023 was remitted for reconsideration by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (‘the AAT’) on the basis that the primary applicant met the genuine temporary entrant requirements of clause 500.212.
On 3 April 2024, the fourth applicant was added to the application.
On 25 July 2024, a delegate of the Minister for Home Affairs (‘the delegate’) refused to grant the application on the basis that the primary applicant did not satisfy the requirement not to provide false and misleading information.[3] The second, third and fourth applicants’ applications were also refused as members of the family unit of the primary applicant.
[3]See clause 500.217 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994 (‘the Regulations’) which requires that student visa applicants must satisfy the public interest criterion 4020 (‘PIC 4020’). In this case, the delegate found the applicant provided false and misleading information in relation to a material particular within the meaning of section 5(1) of the Act in the visa application. A copy of the delegate’s decision was provided to the Tribunal with the applicant’s review application.
On 30 July 2024, the applicants applied to the AAT for a review of the delegate’s decision.[4]
[4] Pursuant to sections 338(2) and 347 of the Act.
The applicants were represented in relation to the review.
On 14 October 2024, the AAT became the Administrative Review Tribunal (‘the Tribunal’). Under the transitional provisions in the Administrative Review Tribunal (Consequential and Transitional Provisions No. 1) Act 2024 (‘the Transitional Act’), applications for review to the AAT that were not finalised before 14 October 2024 are taken to be an application for review to the Tribunal. The Transitional Act gives the Tribunal the authority to continue and finalise any aspect of the review not already completed by the AAT. This decision and statement of reasons is made by the Tribunal.
The applicants appeared, together with their representative, via video hearing before the Tribunal on 14 May 2025 to give evidence and present arguments. The hearing was arranged to be conducted with the assistance of an interpreter in the Italian and English languages. However, the first applicant elected to give much of her evidence in English. The second applicant continued to use the services of the interpreter.
The Tribunal exercised its discretion to hold the hearing by video conference. The Tribunal determined it was reasonable to hold a hearing by video, having regard to the nature of this matter and the individual circumstances of the applicants. The Tribunal also considered its objective to provide a mechanism of review that is fair, just, quick, accessible and responsive and the delay that would occur if the hearing were not be conducted by video in exercising its discretion.
It is for the applicants to satisfy the Tribunal that the requirements of the Act and Regulations have been met. A decision maker is not required to make the applicant’s case. Whilst the concept of onus of proof does not apply to administrative decision making, the relevant facts of the individual case must be supplied by the applicant, in as much detail as necessary to enable the decision maker to properly consider the case that is being put.
For the following reasons, the decision under review is affirmed. In reaching this decision, I have had regard to:
a.the oral evidence given, and submissions made, at hearing;
b.all submissions and written material filed by or on behalf of the applicants; and
c.other relevant documents on the Tribunal and Department files.
Not all the evidence and material that has been placed before the Tribunal has been specifically referred to in my reasons as set out below. The reasons incorporate reference only to that information that I have found to be fundamental or materially significant to the determination of the issues in the case.[5]
[5]In this regard, please see Kumar v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2020] FCAFC 16 (24 February 2020) at [82] and [96].
STATUTORY FRAMEWORK
The issue in this review is whether the visa applicant meets Public Interest Criterion 4020 (PIC 4020) as required by clause 500.217 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).
Satisfaction of PIC4020, requires the decision maker to find that there is no evidence before it that the applicant has given, or caused to be give a bogus document or information that is false or misleading in a material particular in relation to their visa application or a visa the applicant held in the twelve months before the application was made.[6]
[6]PIC 4020(1).
‘False or misleading in a material particular’ means information that is false or misleading at the time it is given and which is relevant to any of the criteria the decision maker may consider when making its decision, whether or not the decision is made because of that information.[7] In contrast, a ‘bogus document’ is a document that the decision maker reasonably suspects is a document that: purports to have been, but was not, issued in respect of the person; or is counterfeit or has been altered by a person without authority to do so; or was obtained because of a false or misleading statement, whether or not made knowingly.[8] A bogus document, therefore, does not have to be a document that is relevant to the criteria to be considered by a decision maker regarding the grant of the visa.[9] This aspect of the PIC4020 provisions operates in an attempt to disincentivise visa applicants from providing bogus documents.
[7]PIC 4020(5). See also Singh v MIAC [2012] FMCA 145 (Driver FM, 24 April 2012) at [68]; Kaur v MIBP [2014] FCCA 1264 (Llyod-jones J, 18 June 2014) at [80]-[81]; Singh v MIBP [2018] FCCA 1136 (Manousaridis J, 9 May 2018); and Khan v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2011] FCA 75 at [28] per Moore J.
[8]Section 5(1) of the Act.
[9]Arora v MIBP [2016] FCAFC 35; Batra v MIAC [2013] FCA 274.
While PIC4020 refers to information that is false, in the sense of purposely untrue, it is not necessary for the decision maker to conclude that the visa applicant was aware the information was purposely untrue in order for PIC4020 to be engaged. However, an element of fraud or deception by some person is necessary to attract the operation of the provision.[10]
[10]Trivedi v MIBP [2014] FCAFC 42.
The requirements of PIC4020(1) and (2) can be waived if there are compelling or compassionate reasons justifying the granting of the visa.[11] However, this waiver does not apply to identity requirements found in PIC4020(2A) and (2B). PIC4020 is extracted in the attachment to this decision.
[11]PIC 4020(4).
The issues for determination in this case are whether the applicant has given, or caused to be given, to the Department a bogus document or information that is false or misleading in a material particular and, if so, whether there are compassionate or compelling reasons for this public interest criterion to be waived.
CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE
Background
The delegate’s decision sets out the history in this matter which revolves around a failure to declare that the first applicant has had five visitor visa applications to Australia refused and the second applicant has had one visitor visa application to Australia refused in the application form at page 17, filed in November 2022.
The application form for student visas includes the question ‘[h]as the applicant, or any person included in this application, ever had an application for entry or further stay in Australia or any other country refused, or had a visa cancelled?’. The applicant has responded ‘yes’ to this question but then only disclosed the second applicant’s student visa refusal in September 2018.
Pages 20 and 21 of this application form, under the headings ‘Student declarations’ and ‘Declarations’ (respectively) state (inter alia) ‘Warning: Giving false or misleading information is a serious offence. or documents is a serious offence’. In the latter section, the applicants declare they:
a.have ‘read and understood the information provided to them in the application’;
b.have ‘provided complete and correct information in every detail on this form, any on any attachments to it’; and
c.understand that if any ‘false or misleading information has been provided with this application… the application may be refused and the applicant(s), and any member of their family unit, may become unable to be granted a visa for a specified period of time.’
The first applicant has been refused five visitor visa applications: in July and October 2019, in January and February 2020 and in April 2022. The second applicant has been refused a visitor visa in June 2019. These visa refusals were not disclosed to the Department prior to the Department sending the applicant a natural justice letter about this issue.
On 6 March and 3 June 2024, the Department sent the applicant a natural justice letter indicating that Department received unfavourable information which may lead to a decision to refuse the application. This letter set out the relevant PIC4020 provisions and referred to the false and misleading information set out in the immediately preceding paragraphs regarding the non-disclosure of visitor visa refusals. This letter invited the applicant to comment on this information and to specify if they believed there were any compelling or compassionate circumstances (in the terms set out in the PIC4020 provisions).
On 3 April 2024, the applicants responded to the aforementioned natural justice letter stating that they did not know a tourism visa refusal needed to be declared and thought they only had to declare student visa refusals. They claimed that their English was poor at the time of application and that they did not understand the question properly. Accompanying legal submissions were filed which suggest that if the applicant intended to give purposely untrue answers there is no reason she would have disclosed the student visa refusal and not the visitor visa refusal.
Has the applicant given, or caused to be given a bogus document, or information that is false or misleading in material particular?
I refer to and repeat paragraphs 20-25 above.
I explained at hearing that previous visitor visa refusals are relevant to the assessment of a student visa application. Of aspect of this relates to the applicant’s immigration history and another relates to an applicant’s intentions onshore. I explained that visitor visa refusals are often refused due to concerns that applicants would do as the applicant has in fact done – arrive on a visitor visa and then make a student visa application seeking to remain onshore, rather than returning to their home country upon completion of their visitor visa period. The first and second applicants both gave evidence that they did not know why their visitor visas were refused but they were simply told the criteria was not met.
At hearing, the first applicant gave evidence that she completed the application form. She gave evidence consistent with submissions previously provided regarding the issue of the visitor visa refusals – she said it was a misunderstanding, her English was not the best and she did not know a tourist visa needed to be declared and thought she only needed to disclose the student visa refusal. When I asked why she would think that she said it was a misunderstanding and her English was not good. I noted that she understood that she needed to declare a student visa refusal and asked why she would not also understand the need to disclose other visa refusals. The applicant gave evidence that it was her mistake and an innocent error, and she was not trying to hide anything.
I find this evidence difficult to accept. The applicant had five separate, relatively recent, visitor visa refusals at the time of her application for a student visa in 2022. There was nothing in the question on the application form limiting the scope of the types of visas to be declared.
Where an applicant is applying for a visa, it is incumbent on them to provide accurate information and provide details or the requirements relevant to the visas.
The Federal Court has held that it is not necessary for a visa applicant know of, or be directly involved in, any falsehood for PIC 4020 to be engaged.[12] However, an element of fraud or deception is necessary in order to attract the operation of PIC 4020.[13] In that case, Buchanan J states:
it is not necessary… to show knowing complicity by a visa applicant. That would impose an impossible task on those administering the visa system. But it is necessary that the information or document have the necessary quality of purposeful falsity, whether or not the visa applicant can be shown to have knowledge of that fact.[14]
[12]Trivedi v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2014] FCAFC 42 per Buchanan J (Allsop CJ and Rangiah J agreeing).
[13]Trivedi v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2014] FCAFC 42 per Buchanan J (Allsop CJ and Rangiah J agreeing).
[14]Trivedi v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2014] FCAFC 42 per Buchanan J (Allsop CJ and Rangiah J agreeing) at [43].
I consider the applicant knew, at a bare minimum, she had five previous visitor visa refusals. I do not accept the evidence that failure to disclose six previous visa refusals was an inadvertent mistake. I consider on the evidence before me that it is more likely than not that the applicant did not want her negative immigration history to impact her prospects of success in her student visa application and her non-disclosure of this information was either deliberate or recklessly indifferent. I note the written submissions filed by the parties’ representative and Mr Dobbie’s submissions at hearing and have considered them in coming to my conclusions in this case.
The Tribunal Guidelines in relation to assessing credibility dictate that evidence is to be assessed in its entirety, not just in isolated parts.[15] The guidelines also state that Members should focus on what is objectively or reasonably believable in the circumstances. The Tribunal does not need rebutting evidence before it can lawfully find that a particular factual assertion made by an applicant is not made out.[16] Where evidence is incoherent, vague or lacking the detail or knowledge where greater detail or knowledge might be expected of a person in the applicant’s claimed position, the weight placed on the applicant’s evidence may be limited and the applicant’s credibility may be questioned.[17]
[15]Chand v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (unreported, Federal Court of Australia, von Doussa, Moore and Sackville JJ, 7 November 1997); Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs v Rajalingham (1999) 93 FCR 220 per Sackville J, with whom North J agreed, at [50]; Sein v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (2001) 114 FCR 370
[16]Selvadurai v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (1994) 34 ALR 347 at 348.
[17]Nejad v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [1999] FCA 1827 per Tamberlin J at [9], upheld on appeal, Nejad v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2000] FCA 741; Wang v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2000] FCA 963 per Goldberg J at [20] to [23]; “T” v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2000] FCA 467 per Drummond, Matthews and Mansfield JJ at [27]-[47]
Taking the evidence as a whole, I consider the applicant has provided false and misleading information on the application form regarding the first and second applicants’ previous visitor visa refusals.
False and misleading information provided in relation to previous visa refusals relates to a material particular of a student visa application both in terms of immigration history and future intentions onshore.[18] This information may have been considered and then disregarded by the original decision maker but it is relevant to the criteria that must be considered when making a decision on a student visa application. The PIC4020 in Schedule 4 of the Regulations specifically states that ‘information that is false or misleading in a material particular’ means information that is false or misleading at the time it was given and that it was relevant to the criteria the Minister may consider when making their decision, whether or not the decision is made because of that information (emphasis added).
[18]Pursuant to clause 500.212 of the Regulations and Direction 108 regarding student visas.
I find that the applicant has provided false or misleading information within the meaning of Act and Regulations.
I find that 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 Regulation 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.[19]
[19]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.[20] The ordinary meaning of ‘compassionate’ relates to feelings of sympathy, sorrow, pity or concern for others.
[20]Plaintiff M64/2015 v MIBP [2015] HCA 50.
Guidance on circumstances that may amount to compelling or compassionate circumstances may be found in the Explanatory Statement to SLI 2011, No 13 (‘ES’) which introduced PIC 4020, and the Department’s policy guidelines.[21] While not binding, the Tribunal may have regard to the Department’s interpretation and examples of what may constitute compelling or compassionate circumstances.[22]
[21]Policy – [Sch4 4020] – Public Interest Criterion 4020 – The integrity PIC - Compelling and/or compassionate circumstances (re-issue date 1/1/18).
[22]Mudiyanselage v MIAC [2012] FMCA 887 where the Court noted it was open for the Tribunal to be guided by Department policy.
According to the ES it was intended that the granting of the waiver would relate solely to compelling circumstances affecting Australia’s interests, or the compassionate and compelling circumstances affecting the interests of an Australian citizen, an Australian permanent resident or an eligible New Zealand citizen, not the interests of the visa applicant.[23] The types of circumstances that may involve compelling or compassionate reasons for waiving the requirements of PIC 4020 identified in the ES include:
·family reasons (for example, unexpected serious or fatal family situations over which the applicant had no control, such as the incapacitation or death of a partner or child or another member of the family unit);
·that family members in Australia would be left without financial or emotional support; and
·a parent in Australia would be separated from their child (for example, if the child was removed with their non-resident parent and would therefore be subject to an exclusion period).[24]
[23]ES at 19. The Court in Vyas v MIMAC [2013] FCCA 1226 found the ES to be of assistance in considering the plain words of the waiver provision such that it could not be said that it would be sufficient for the applicants to demonstrate that their circumstances were compelling or compassionate alone, but that there has to be a connection with Australia or an Australian citizen or permanent resident, or eligible New Zealand citizen, because otherwise there would be no utility in having those words in the clause (at [14]).
[24] ES at 19-20.
In addition, the Department’s guidelines suggest that there may be compelling circumstances affecting the interests of Australia if:
·Australia’s trade or business opportunities would be adversely affected were the person not granted the visa (noting that gaining employer sponsorship is not considered sufficient grounds for a waiver); or
·Australia’s relationship with a foreign government would be damaged were the person not granted the visa; or
·Australia would miss out on a significant benefit that the person could contribute to Australia’s business, economic, cultural or other development (for example, a special skill that is highly sought after in Australia) if the person was not granted the visa.[25]
[25]Policy – [Sch4 4020] – Public Interest Criterion 4020 – The integrity PIC - Compelling and/or compassionate circumstances – Compelling circumstances affecting the interests of Australia (re-issue date 1/1/18).
The policy states that compelling circumstances affecting the interests of Australia would not include circumstances where the non-citizen merely claims that, if granted the visa, they would work and pay taxes in Australia, pay fees to an education provider or spend money in Australia.[26]
[26]Policy – [Sch4 4020] – Public Interest Criterion 4020 – The integrity PIC - Compelling and/or compassionate circumstances Compelling circumstances affecting the interests of Australia (re-issue date 1/1/18).
No submissions have been made and the applicants had no evidence to give on this issue at hearing. The applicants gave evidence that neither of them is working onshore, they are not involved in any sort of community organisations in Australia and do not have any family onshore.
I am not satisfied that, singly or cumulatively, there are compelling circumstances affecting Australia’s interests, or compassionate or compelling circumstances that affect the interests of an Australian citizen, an Australian permanent resident or an eligible New Zealand citizen that justify the grant of the visa.
For the above reasons, I am not satisfied that the requirements of PIC 4020(1) should be waived pursuant to PIC 4020(4).
Other Matters
I note the first applicant’s application to her studies and academic progress during her time onshore, including while onshore on a bridging visa awaiting the outcome of her review applications and while raising a young family in a foreign country. I acknowledge her tenacity in this regard. I note the evidence at hearing that the family intend to return to Switzerland upon completion of the first applicant’s study later this year. I commend the applicant in relation to her application to her study but do not consider this overcomes the evidence that falls against her in this case.
Conclusions
On the basis of the above, the first named applicant does not satisfy PIC 4020 for the purposes of clause 500.217 of Schedule 2 of the Regulations. Therefore, the second, third and fourth applicants’ applications must also fail because the primary application has failed, and they are secondary, dependent applicants to that application.
DECISION
The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicants Student (Temporary) (Class TU) visas.
Date(s) of hearing: 14 May 2025
Representative for the Applicant: Mr Nigel James Dobbie
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 ART during the review of a reviewable migration 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.
…
0
20
0