XUE (Migration)

This matter concerned an application for a Skilled Nominated (Permanent) visa (Subclass 190). The central dispute revolved around whether the applicant had provided false or misleading information or a bogus document in relation to their application, specifically concerning the range and level of duties stated in work reference letters. The decision was made by Jade Murphy, a Member of the Tribunal.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicant met Public Interest Criterion (PIC) 4020, which requires that there be no evidence of the applicant having provided a bogus document or false or misleading information in relation to their visa application or a previous visa held within 12 months. The Tribunal also considered the definitions of "bogus document" and "information that is false or misleading in a material particular" as provided in the Migration Act 1958 and the Migration Regulations 1994, respectively.

The Tribunal reasoned that while departmental officers had initially contacted the applicant's former general manager by phone and received information suggesting the applicant performed lower-level duties than stated in their work reference letters, subsequent written information from the manager corrected this. The Tribunal found the manager's initial verbal information, given in English without full awareness of the call's purpose, to be less credible than the consistent and credible evidence presented by both the applicant and the manager at the hearing. Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that the applicant did satisfy PIC 4020.

The Tribunal remitted the applications for Skilled Nominated (Permanent) visas for reconsideration, directing that the first named applicant meets Public Interest Criterion 4020 for the purposes of clause 190.216 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations.