Singh (Migration)

This matter concerned an application for an Other Family (Residence) (Class BU) visa, subclass 835 (Remaining Relative), by Mr. Singh and his wife. The primary issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicants met the criteria for the visa grant, specifically concerning the provision of information to the Department. The decision under review was a refusal to grant the visa.

The central legal question before the Tribunal was whether the applicants had provided false or misleading information in relation to their visa application, thereby failing to satisfy Particulars in the Public Interest (PIC) 4020. This involved determining whether the failure to disclose near relatives not residing in Australia constituted information that was false or misleading in a material particular, and whether any waiver provisions under PIC 4020(4) were applicable.

The Tribunal found that the applicants had failed to provide details of their near relatives not residing in Australia, including the applicant's daughter, mother-in-law, and five siblings. This omission was considered to be information that was false or misleading in a material particular, as defined by PIC 4020(5), because it was relevant to the criteria for a remaining relative visa. The Tribunal noted that the requirement to provide such information applied regardless of whether the applicant was aware the information was untrue, provided an element of fraud or deception by some person was present, as per *Trivedi v MIBP* [2014] FCAFC 42. The Tribunal concluded that the waiver provisions in PIC 4020(4) were not applicable in this instance.

Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the visa to Mr. Singh. As he did not meet the primary criteria, his wife, as a member of the family unit, also did not meet the criteria for the grant of the visa. The Tribunal therefore affirmed the decision to refuse both applications.