Ngo (Migration)

This matter concerned an appeal by Ms. Ngo against a decision regarding her application for a Visitor (Class FA) visa, Subclass 600. The primary dispute revolved around the validity of a non-disclosure certificate issued under s 375A of the Migration Act 1958 and whether Mr. Nguyen, Ms. Ngo's spouse, had provided false or misleading information or a bogus document in relation to his employment, thereby engaging Public Interest Criterion (PIC) 4020. The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (the Tribunal) was required to determine if the evidence presented was sufficiently probative to conclude that Mr. Nguyen had provided false or misleading information concerning his employment with Nhat Tien.

The Tribunal considered the definition of "evidence" for the purposes of PIC 4020, noting that it requires more than mere suggestion of falsity; it must be probative information leading to the conclusion that false or misleading information was given in relation to a criterion for the visa. The Tribunal found that the information regarding social insurance payments and a discrepancy in the date of Mr. Nguyen's national ID card on his labour contract, while potentially raising questions, was not sufficiently probative to conclude that Mr. Nguyen was not employed by Nhat Tien as claimed. The Tribunal also noted that the unsigned non-disclosure certificate was potentially invalid based on recent Federal Circuit Court authority.

Ultimately, the Tribunal concluded that the available information, including inquiries made of the Vietnamese National Business Registration website, was not sufficiently probative to establish that Mr. Nguyen had provided false or misleading information or a bogus document regarding his employment. Therefore, Mr. Nguyen was found to meet PIC 4020. The Tribunal remitted the application for reconsideration with a direction that Mr. Nguyen met PIC 4020 for the purposes of the visa application.