Zhang (Migration)

This matter concerned an application for a Subclass 890 (Business Owner) visa by Ms Zhang, and a secondary application by another applicant. The primary dispute revolved around whether Ms Zhang had provided a bogus document or false or misleading information in support of her visa application, specifically a notarial certificate from China attesting to her lack of a criminal record. The Tribunal was required to determine if Ms Zhang met Public Interest Criterion (PIC) 4020, which mandates that applicants must not have provided bogus documents or false or misleading information, and that they have not had previous visa refusals due to such failures, unless specific exceptions apply.

The Tribunal's reasoning focused on the assessment of PIC 4020(1). It considered the definition of a "bogus document" under section 5(1) of the Migration Act 1958 and the meaning of "information that is false or misleading in a material particular" under PIC 4020(5). The Tribunal noted that the requirement under PIC 4020(1) applies regardless of whether the applicant knowingly provided the document or information, and whether the decision-maker became aware of it through the applicant's own disclosure. The Tribunal found that the applicant had not provided evidence to contest the validity of a certificate detailing adverse information, which cited a public interest ground. Despite the applicant's assertions of procedural unfairness and suggestions of her former husband's involvement, the Tribunal was satisfied that the Chinese Notarial Certificate Number 6129 was bogus, based on departmental verification checks.

The Tribunal concluded that Ms Zhang failed to satisfy PIC 4020(1) due to the submission of the bogus notarial certificate. Consequently, the Tribunal found that the second applicant, as a member of the family unit, also failed to satisfy the secondary applicant requirements for the visa. The Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the Business Skills (Residence) (Class DF) visas to the applicants.