Sesay (Migration)

This matter concerned an application for a Child (Migrant) (Class AH) visa, Subclass 117 (Orphan Relative). The applicant's claim that her mother was deceased was questioned due to social media activity, leading to inconclusive evidence. The decision under review was made by the Tribunal, presided over by Member Peter Emmerton.

The central legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the visa applicant met Public Interest Criterion (PIC) 4020, a mandatory requirement for the grant of the Subclass 117 visa. This criterion encompasses several sub-requirements, including the absence of bogus documents or false or misleading information provided in relation to the visa application or a previous visa, and the applicant satisfying the Minister as to their identity. The Tribunal also considered the possibility of waiving certain PIC 4020 requirements under compelling or compassionate circumstances affecting the interests of an Australian citizen.

The Tribunal reasoned that the applicant did satisfy PIC 4020 for the purposes of the visa application. While the text details the various components of PIC 4020, including definitions of "bogus document" and "information that is false or misleading in a material particular," and the conditions for waiver, it ultimately concludes that the applicant meets the criterion. The Tribunal did not elaborate on the specific evidence that led to this conclusion, nor did it detail the social media activity or the reasons for the initial doubt.

Consequently, the Tribunal remitted the applications for Child (Migrant) (Class AH) visas for reconsideration. The direction was that the first and second named applicants meet PIC 4020 for the purposes of cl 117.223 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994, and the third named applicant/secondary applicant meets PIC 4020 for the purposes of cl 117.321 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations.