Owen (Migration)

This matter concerned an application for a Regional Employer Nomination (Permanent) (Class RN) visa, Subclass 187 (Regional Sponsored Migration Scheme). The applicant, a Civil Engineer, had their application refused, and the review of this decision was heard by the Tribunal. The central dispute revolved around whether the applicant had provided false or misleading information or a bogus document in relation to their claimed work experience, thereby failing to meet Public Interest Criterion (PIC) 4020.

The Tribunal was required to determine whether the applicant had given, or caused to be given, a bogus document or information that was false or misleading in a material particular, as stipulated by PIC 4020(1). This criterion requires that there be no evidence of such a document or information being provided in relation to the visa application or a previous visa held within the preceding 12 months. The Tribunal also needed to consider the definitions of "bogus document" under section 5(1) of the Migration Act 1958 and "information that is false or misleading in a material particular" under PIC 4020(5).

The Tribunal reasoned that while PIC 4020 applies whether the false or misleading information was provided knowingly or unwittingly, an element of fraud or deception by some person is necessary for the provision to be engaged. In this instance, the Tribunal concluded that the applicant satisfied PIC 4020. The Tribunal noted that hearsay material had been displaced by direct evidence.

Consequently, the Tribunal remitted the applications for Regional Employer Nomination (Permanent) visas for reconsideration. The direction was that the first named applicant met PIC 4020 for the purposes of clause 187.213 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations. The Tribunal also observed that it was open to the department to reconsider its findings in relation to other visa applicants.