Zhao (Migration)

This matter concerned an application for an Employer Nomination (Permanent) (Class EN) Visa, Subclass 186, brought by Dianjie Zhao. The core of the dispute revolved around whether the applicant had provided a bogus document or false or misleading information in relation to their application, which would have prevented them from satisfying Public Interest Criterion (PIC) 4020. The decision was made by the Tribunal.

The Tribunal was required to determine whether the applicant met PIC 4020, as stipulated by cl 186.213(1) of the Migration Regulations 1994. This criterion broadly requires that there be no evidence of the applicant providing a bogus document or false or misleading information in relation to the visa application or a previous visa held within 12 months prior. Additionally, the Tribunal had to consider whether the applicant had a history of visa refusals due to failing PIC 4020 within specified periods, and whether they satisfied identity requirements under PIC 4020(2A) and (2B).

The Tribunal reasoned that while a work reference could potentially be false or misleading regarding an applicant's skills, there was insufficient evidence to conclude that the applicant had provided a bogus document or false or misleading information. The Tribunal found that the applicant was fully qualified and experienced, and therefore, PIC 4020(2B) was met. Consequently, the Tribunal remitted the application for reconsideration, directing that the applicant satisfied PIC 4020 for the purposes of cl 186.213(1) and cl 186.213.