How a bogus document vastly affects Your visa application for Australia? (PART 2)

myRMA's Latest Australian Migration News

How a bogus document vastly affects Your visa application for Australia? (PART 2)


 

About Public Interest Criterion 4020 and the purpose of PIC 4020 was intended to significantly increase the level of integrity in visa applications by providing a strong disincentive to those considering giving, or causing to be given, a bogus document or information that is false or misleading in a material particular, or not applying in their true identity.

The application of PIC 4020 and the scope of the applied transitional provisions was inserted into the Regulations with effect from 2 April 2011.

The PIC then applied to:

  • applications made on or after 2 April 2011 and
  • applications made before 2 April 2011 that were not finally determined as of 2 April 2011.

PIC 4020 came into effect on the date listed for the following visa streams that RESPALL (Migration) Australia organise for its Filipino clients namely: -

02 April 2011: General Skilled Migration

05 November 2011: Student

01 July 2012: Permanent Skilled Entry.

24 November 2012: Current SkillSelect Categories SI 189, SN 190 and SP 489.

23 March 2013:Temporary EntryVisitor (FA 600)

01 July 2013: Temporary / Permanent Partner (TO 300, UF 309, UK 820, BC 100 & BS 801)

For assistance in determining whether PIC 4020 applies to your Filipino visa application within an affected visa class, delegates should email info@respall.com.

Assessing an application against PIC 4020 a section 65 delegate of the Ministerwill consider the following aspects of a Filipino visa application:

In PIC 4020(1) there are four components, all of which must be met for 4020(1) to have effect - that is, in order for a Filipino applicant to fail:

  • the Filipino applicant must have ‘given, or caused to be given’
  • to the Minister, an officer, the Migration Review Tribunal, a relevant assessing authority or a Medical Officer of the Commonwealth
  • a ‘bogus document’ or ‘information that is false or misleading in a material particular’ and
  • the bogus document or information must be ‘in relation to’ the application for the visa, or a visa that the applicant held in the period of 12 months before the application was made.

Note: - In order for a Filipino applicant to fail to satisfy 4020(1), there must be evidence that all of these components are met.

If, a Filipino applicant satisfies PIC 4020(1), it does not necessarily mean they will be granted a visa. Case officers are still required to be satisfied that an applicant meets all requirements for visa grant.

PIC 4020(2) provides that the Filipino applicant and each member of the applicant’s family unit must not have been refused a visa because of a failure to satisfy PIC 4020(1) during a specified period:

  • 4020(2) (a) provides that this period starts three years before the visa application was made. The reference to ‘the application’ is a reference to the visa application that is currently being considered.
  • 4020(2) (b) provides that the period ends when a decision is made to grant or refuse the application (that is, a decision under s65 to grant or refuse a visa). Again the reference to ‘the application’ is a reference to the visa application currently being considered.

For example, if a person applied for a visa on 1 January 2012, the period referred to in PIC 4020(2) (a) started on 1 January 2009 and in accordance with PIC 4020(2) (b), ends when a decision is made on the current visa application.

  • PIC 4020(2A) requires the Filipino applicant to satisfy the delegate as to the applicant’s identity.

That is, the Filipino applicant is required to convince the delegate that they are who they say they are. In situations where an applicant provides a false identity and then, when challenged, provides legitimate evidence that they are in fact another person, then (2A) would be satisfied.

PIC 4020(2B) requires the delegate to be satisfied that during the period:

  • starting 10 years before the application was made and
  • ending when a decision is made to grant or refuse the application

neither the Filipino applicant, nor any member of the family unit of the applicant, has been refused a visa because of a failure to satisfy the criteria in PIC 4020(2A).

Like PIC 4020(2), PIC 4020(2B) is concerned only with whether a refusal decision has taken place during the relevant period. When considering the application of PIC 4020(2) and (2B), the case officer needs to consider whether the Filipino applicant, and/or a member of the family unit (MOFU) of the applicant, has not been refused a visa because of a failure to satisfy the criteria in PIC 4020(1) or (2A). The reference to MOFU in 4020(2) and (2B) is a reference to persons who are MOFU of the applicant at the time the application is being considered. This includes members of the applicant’s family unit regardless of whether or not they are included in the application being considered.

Since the introduction of PIC 4020 the department has applied a policy of exempting a minor from the non-grant period specified in PIC 4020(2) and (2B). This was generally accomplished by refusing the minor for another reason, such as the primary applicant not being granted a visa, as opposed to refusing the minor for failing to satisfy PIC 4020. A minor should not be penalised for the fraudulent actions of a Filipino parent or guardian. Accordingly, the department amended the regulations to provide a clear legislative authority for the application of the exemption to minors in the relevant circumstances. These amendments state:

  • (2AA) However, subclause (2) does not apply to the applicant if, at the time the application for the refused visa was made, the applicant was under 18.
  • (2BA) However, subclause (2B) does not apply to the applicant if, at the time the application for the refused visa was made, the applicant was under 18.

PIC 4020(2AA) and (2BA) provides for Filipino applicants who were under the age of 18 (a minor) at the time that they made the application that was refused to not be subject to the three year or ten year requirements of PIC 4020(2) or PIC 4020(2B).

It is important to remember that the amendments do not prevent the minor from being refused for failing to satisfy PIC 4020 - it just means they would not be subject to the three year and ten year non-grant periods if their application was to be refused under PIC 4020.

This will ensure minors will not be penalised in future applications. These measures will also assist in the accurate recording of instances of fraud in visa applications. It will also ensure that all applicants tainted by fraudulent activity will be scrutinised in future applications.

RESPALL (Migration) Australia conduct SkillSelect Assessment Seminars at their Makati City office in the Philippines and Partner Conference Calls throughout Australia and the Philippines.  PIC 4020 is always discussed and explained during these information discussions and their consequences to the potential Filipino applicants.

If you require more information regarding Public Interest Criteria 4020 or would like to lodge a valid, genuine and continuous permanent visa application to Australia from the Philippines, avoid the migration minefield and safely migrate to Australia from the Philippines then ACT NOW and register your details to the following link https://www.respall.com/index.php/register

May 07, 2017