Tang (Migration)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal considered the application of a Vietnamese citizen for a Skilled (Residence) (Class VB) visa, Subclass 886 (Skilled - Sponsored). The applicant's visa had been refused by a delegate in 2012 due to the provision of a bogus document, specifically an employer reference for work experience that the delegate deemed non-genuine after a site visit. This refusal was affirmed by the Tribunal in 2016, but the matter was subsequently remitted to the Tribunal by the Federal Circuit Court in 2017. The Tribunal was tasked with reconsidering the application, including new information and a previously undisclosed s.375A certificate from 2014.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicant met Public Interest Criterion (PIC) 4020, which relates to the provision of bogus documents or false and misleading information, and whether there were compelling or compassionate circumstances to waive this criterion. The Tribunal also had to consider the validity and implications of the s.375A certificate and an accompanying Integrity Report, which detailed the Department's site visits to the applicant's purported employer in 2011. The applicant was given opportunities to respond to this information and to attend a hearing.

The Tribunal reasoned that while the initial refusal was based on a bogus document, it had received new evidence, including payslips, photographs, and crucially, the Australian Citizenship Certificate of the applicant's child, born in 2016. The Tribunal found that compelling and compassionate circumstances existed, specifically those affecting the interests of an Australian citizen child, which justified waiving the requirements of PIC 4020. The Tribunal concluded that the applicant satisfied PIC 4020 for the purposes of the Subclass 886 visa due to these circumstances.

Consequently, the Tribunal remitted the application for a Skilled (Residence) (Class VB) visa for reconsideration, with a direction that the applicant satisfies PIC 4020.