Trivedi v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2014] FCAFC 42 (4 April 2014)

On 4 April 2014, the Federal Court of Australia Full Court unanimously agreed that it is not
necessary for a visa applicant to be knowingly or directly involved in the giving of a bogus
document or false or misleading information in order for the grant of a visa to be refused for
failing to satisfy PIC 4020.

The court held that to refuse on the basis of PIC 4020 it is necessary that the information or
document have the quality of “purposeful falsity” whether or not the visa applicant can be shown
to have personal knowledge of that fact. A visa application could not be refused due to
PIC 4020 if a visa applicant could explain an innocent mistake in a document or information
provided by them or on their behalf.

Kandel (Migration) [2018] AATA 3230 (19 July 2018)

Compelling circumstances that affect the interests of Australia - PIC 4020(4)(a)

Australia would miss out on a significant benefit that the person could contribute to
Australia’s business, economic, cultural or other development (for example, a special
skill that is highly sought after in Australia) if the person was not granted the visa.

Sheikh (Migration) [2018] AATA 1056

The visa applicant submitted that he believed the documents to be genuine as they were
properly obtained from the hospital. The Tribunal found that that the visa applicant had given a
bogus document. This finding was based on the information in the Department’s decision record
that indicated the documents were not registered and were fraudulent.
The Tribunal was satisfied PIC 4020 should be waived in this matter due to compassionate
circumstances affecting the interests of Australian citizens or permanent residents that justified
the granting of the visa.

Singh v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2018] FCAFC 52

Insofar as the AAT engaged with the question of whether and to what extent Mr Singh “caused” the
bogus document to be given to the Minister, the engagement was confined to whether his
knowledge that the document was bogus was relevant and, on that issue, the AAT determined that
it was not. The AAT did not otherwise engage with whether, by reason of any act or omission of Mr
Singh, it could be concluded that Mr Singh bore responsibility for the physical provision of the bogus
document to the Minister
Other information to be included in the submission

Statement from the applicant stating that she was unaware about this that her bachelor’s degree
from EIILM is not valid and was issued as a fake degree. If she would have known about this she
would not have come so far and spent so much time, money and efforts if she would have known
that the foundation of all these efforts are worthless. She came to Australia on student visa in year
2014 and to study master’s in social work in Tasmania University. She came to Australia as an
international student and cleared all the hustles from getting admissions in Tasmania University and
getting visa through immigration department. We would also like to put some light here about the
error made by Tasmania University and Immigration department at the first place. If the proper
checks were conducted at the initial stage the applicant would have known about this fraud at the
initial stage and would have not applied and invested her time.