Sanchez Reinoso (Migration)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) considered a review concerning a Skilled Independent (Permanent) (Class SI) visa, Subclass 189. The applicant, Mr. Sanchez Reinoso, sought the grant of this visa. The core of the dispute revolved around information provided in his visa application, specifically regarding his prior employment history.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether Mr. Sanchez Reinoso met the requirements of Public Interest Criterion (PIC) 4020, as stipulated by clause 189.211 of the Migration Regulations. This criterion mandates that an applicant must not have provided a bogus document or false or misleading information in relation to their visa application or a previous visa held within the preceding 12 months. The Tribunal also had to consider whether any compelling or compassionate reasons existed to justify a waiver of PIC 4020(1), as permitted by PIC 4020(4).

The Tribunal's reasoning focused on whether the applicant had provided false or misleading information. The applicant had claimed employment at Insomet in Ecuador from January 2010 to February 2013 as a Supervisor, which was used to claim points for the visa. The Tribunal noted that the definition of "bogus document" does not require the false statement to be relevant to a visa grant criterion, citing *Arora v MIBP* and *Batra v MIAC*. Furthermore, the Tribunal observed that PIC 4020 applies regardless of whether the applicant provided the information knowingly or unwittingly, although an element of fraud or deception is necessary for the provision to be engaged, as per *Trivedi v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection*. The Tribunal concluded that the decision under review should be affirmed.