Sadan (Migration)

This matter concerned an appeal by an applicant for a Student (Temporary) (Class TU) visa, subclass 500, against a decision to affirm the refusal of his visa application. The dispute centred on the applicant's submission of two documents, a Certificate of Completion and a Record of Results from Mercury College, which were later confirmed by the college to be non-genuine and fraudulent. The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) was required to determine whether the applicant had provided a bogus document or false or misleading information in relation to his visa application, thereby failing to meet Public Interest Criterion (PIC) 4020.

The Tribunal was tasked with assessing whether the applicant had provided a bogus document or false or misleading information, as defined by the Migration Act 1958 and PIC 4020. It also had to consider whether any compelling or compassionate circumstances existed that would justify waiving the requirements of PIC 4020. The applicant's representative argued that the applicant was unaware of the documents' falsity, having obtained them from an "RPL" salesperson, and that their submission constituted an innocent mistake rather than intentional deception, citing *Trivedi v MIBP* [2014] FCAFC 42.

The Tribunal found that the applicant had provided bogus documents. It rejected the applicant's explanation that the submission was an innocent mistake, noting that the documents themselves did not indicate they were obtained through Recognition of Prior Learning and that any reasonable person would have made inquiries. The Tribunal was not satisfied that the documents were submitted innocently, concluding they were bogus within the meaning of the Act. Furthermore, the Tribunal found no compelling or compassionate circumstances that would justify waiving the requirements of PIC 4020, particularly as the applicant provided no submissions or evidence to support such a waiver. Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the decision under review.