Rajan (Migration)

[2020] AATA 4755

Rajan (Migration) [2020] AATA 4755 (30 July 2020)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

APPLICANTS:  Mrs Anjali Rajan
Mr Abilash Thomas
Master Aiden Abilash Thomas

CASE NUMBER:  1911065

DIBP REFERENCE(S):  BCC2018/3169321

MEMBER:Tim Connellan

DATE AND TIME OF

ORAL DECISION AND REASONS:         30 July 2020 at 2:32 pm (VIC time)

DATE OF WRITTEN RECORD:                18 August 2020

PLACE OF DECISION:  Melbourne

DECISION:The Tribunal remits the decisions under review with the direction that the primary applicant satisfies cl.190.216.

Statement made on 18 August 2020 at 6:16pm

CATCHWORDS
MIGRATION –Skilled Nominated (Permanent) (Class SN) visa – Subclass 190 – bogus document, or false or misleading information – legitimate document – evidence provided –decision under review remitted

LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958, s 65
Migration Regulations 1994, Schedule 2, cl 190.216, Schedule 4, Public Interest Criterion (‘PIC’) 4020

APPLICATION FOR REVIEW

1. This is an application for review of decisions made by a delegate of the Minister for Immigration on 17 April 2019 to refuse to grant the visa applicants Skilled Nominated (Permanent) Subclass 190 visas under the Migration Act 1958 (the Act).

2. At the hearing on 30 July 2020, the Tribunal made an oral decision and gave an oral statement of decision and reasons. The following is the written record of those reasons.

   STATEMENT OF DECISION AND REASONS

3. You made an application for a 190 Skilled Nominated visa and that visa application included your husband as a secondary applicant.  Your application was refused on 17 April 2019.  The delegate was not satisfied you met clause 190.216, which deals with, Public Interest Criteria (PIC) 4020, which requires that there is no evidence before the Minister that an applicant has provided or caused to be provided a bogus document or information that is false or misleading in relation to an application for a visa. 

4. The delegate found that you had provided two such documents, an experience certificate dated 22 May 2014, and an undated reference letter.

5. The department were not satisfied from evidence provided that you had ever been employed at the Sajjr hospital as claimed and requested you to provide a range of other evidence, including pay slips and bank statements. 

6. You provided an abundance of evidence including pages of screen shots of discussions and negotiations and whatever, none of which provide the required evidence.  However, in a recent submission, you have provided evidence that was not available to the department I the form of a salary certificate, that indicates that you were employed and you have provided a range of documents attesting to the fact that your remuneration was paid directly into your bank account.

7. You have also provided a letter that says pay slips from that period are no longer available due to the fact that the hospital has computerised and the old manual pay slips are no longer available.  I am satisfied from that evidence provided that you were working there, that you were paid and that your money went into the bank account.

8. You have provided a number of documents many of which have the common thread of your residency number on them.  They are documents that are generally on official letterhead and I accept that they are legitimate documents. 

9. You have provided a work contract that I believe is a legitimate document, and satisfies me that you worked as you claim at the Sajir General Hospital for the period 18 November 2012 to 27 October 2014. Consequently, it is my opinion that the documents provided in the form of the experience certificate and the undated reference letter were not bogus documents or false or misleading information in a material particular.

10. I therefore find that you have not breached PIC 4020 and that you do satisfy clause 190.216, and it is my intention to remit this matter to the Department with that direction.  And so the decision of this tribunal is that this matter is remitted to the Department with the direction that you do satisfy clause 190.216.

    DECISION

11. The Tribunal remits the decisions under review with the direction that the applicant satisfies cl.190.216.

    Tim Connellan
    Member