Singh (Migration)

This matter concerned an appeal by Mr. Singh against a decision to refuse him a Regional Employer Nomination (Permanent) (Class RN) visa, Subclass 187 (Regional Sponsored Migration Scheme), Direct Entry stream. The primary issue revolved around Public Interest Criterion (PIC) 4020, specifically whether Mr. Singh had provided a bogus document or false or misleading information in relation to his application. The delegate's decision had found that an International English Language Testing System (IELTS) test result submitted by Mr. Singh was not genuine, citing a previous IELTS test result that had been cancelled due to an imposter and a significant, rapid improvement in Mr. Singh's scores.

The court was required to determine whether there was sufficient probative evidence to establish a "reasonable suspicion" that the IELTS test result provided by Mr. Singh was a bogus document or constituted false or misleading information, thereby failing to meet PIC 4020(1). The court also considered the definition of "bogus document" under section 5(1) of the Migration Act 1958 and the evidentiary threshold required to engage PIC 4020.

The court reasoned that the term "evidence" in PIC 4020(1) requires more than mere suggestion of falsity; it necessitates probative information that points to the document being false or misleading. Citing cases such as *Talukder v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship* and *Sharma & Ors v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs and Citizenship*, the court emphasised that the decision-maker must be satisfied that the information is acceptable as evidence pointing to falsity or misleading information that was material to the visa application. The court found that while the cancellation of a previous IELTS test due to an imposter and the applicant's explanation for his travel and passport issues raised concerns, the evidence did not reach the threshold of being sufficiently probative to justify a "reasonable suspicion" that the specific IELTS test in question was a bogus document or that Mr. Singh had provided false or misleading information.

Consequently, the Tribunal remitted the application for reconsideration. The direction was that Mr. Singh met PIC 4020 for the purposes of clause 187.213 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations, allowing the Minister to consider the remaining criteria for the visa.