Rojas Nanac (Migration)

This matter concerned a Partner (Temporary) (Class UK) visa, subclass 820 (Spouse), applied for by Rojas Nanac. The dispute arose because the applicant had previously provided a fraudulent bank statement in support of an earlier student visa application. The review was heard by Russell Matheson.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicant met Public Interest Criterion (PIC) 4020, a mandatory requirement for the grant of the visa. This criterion generally prohibits the grant of a visa if the applicant has provided a bogus document or false or misleading information in relation to a current or previous visa application. The Tribunal also considered whether any compelling or compassionate circumstances existed that would justify waiving the requirements of PIC 4020.

The Tribunal reasoned that PIC 4020 is engaged if a bogus document or false or misleading information is provided, regardless of whether the applicant was aware the information was untrue, provided there was an element of fraud or deception. The Tribunal noted that the applicant had submitted a document purporting to be a bank statement from Banko de Credito Peru (BCP) to demonstrate sufficient funds for her student visa, which was considered to be of a "non-genuine" nature. The Tribunal found that the applicant had provided, or caused to be provided, a bogus document or false or misleading information in relation to a visa held within the 12 months prior to the current application.

The Tribunal concluded that the matter should be remitted for reconsideration. This indicates that while PIC 4020 was engaged, the Tribunal found that the applicant's circumstances warranted further assessment, potentially in relation to the waiver provisions or the sufficiency of the information provided to the applicant to respond to the concerns raised.