SADEGHIAN (Migration)

This matter concerned an application for review of a decision to refuse a Business Skills (Provisional) visa (Subclass 188). The applicant sought to challenge a finding that she, along with her mother and sister, had submitted bogus documents, leading to the refusal of their visas under Public Interest Criterion (PIC) 4020(1). The applicant claimed that her migration agent had forged her signature on the documents.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicant and her mother and sister had satisfied the secondary criteria for the visa as members of the family unit of the primary visa holder (the father). This involved determining whether the applicant met PIC 4020, which broadly requires that an applicant has not provided bogus documents or false or misleading information, and has not had visas refused due to a failure to satisfy PIC 4020. The Tribunal also considered the definition of a "bogus document" under the Migration Act 1958.

The Tribunal considered evidence including departmental files, the Tribunal's case file, written submissions, and oral discussions. While the applicant alleged forgery by her migration agent, the Tribunal's assessment focused on whether the documents themselves contained incorrect, false, or misleading information. The Tribunal ultimately affirmed the decision not to grant the visas, finding that the applicant had not met the required criteria.

The Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicants Business Skills (Provisional) visas.