So by the time the applicant found AR LAW Services his Australian dream lay in tatters.

Once again yet another “good” case had been poorly handled by an inexperience Migration Agent who lied about his abilities and dupe the applicant to trust this incompetent Migration Agent. (And for a huge price not only money but also the price of a ruined marriage)

After seeking advice from various Immigration Solicitors and Law Firm the applicant found us.

The case was already at the appeal stage – at the Administrative Appeal Tribunal (AAT) by the time AR LAW Services were retained/hired to fight the case.

Bogus Documents and PIC 4020 are very difficult cases because there are “strict” liability cases. (For “strict” liability see my earlier blog: https://www.arlaw.com.au/uncategorized/ar-law-services-wins-another-important-aat-appeal-pic-4020-the-outlook-was-bleak/)

Consequently the argument needs to address the construction of the law and the process by which it is applied.

AR LAW Services win difficult case – not with “magic” – but with a profound and deep understanding of the Act/the statute, the regulations, the departmental policy and importantly how all of these things are interpreted and understood by the Australian Courts and Tribunals – what is often call the jurisprudence.

It is our understanding of how powerful knowledge is that makes us a powerful and successful advocate for our clients over the last 20 years.

And this case was no different.

As often is the case the first thing we needed to do was remedial work – to fix up the damage done by the incompetent migration agent (tautological?)

Once that mess was sorted we could start to rebuild the case for appeal – and in no small way assist in the rebuilding of the applicant’s shattered Australian dream and life.

The sweep and breadth of PIC 4020 makes it a difficult beast to smite, particularly the concept of ‘bogus documents”.

Yet it is in the detail of this part of immigration law often lies it weakness and the keys to a clients salvation.

This case was no exception.

The allegation of “bogus document” is not only difficult and often misunderstood by visa applicants, but clearly often misunderstood by embassy and departmental officers.

Therefore the “key to salvation” is proper construction.

Once the error of the decision maker was clarified and a more lucid and better construction was submitted to the AAT by AR LAW Services the member had no real choice but to agree with us and remit the case.

So if you or someone you know has had a visa refused pursuant to Bogus Documents or PIC 4020. Or if you are a foreign national with concerns about the veracity of your documents talk to us.

AR LAW Services are not only Masters of Migration and Visa law but we have extensive experience in PIC 4020 and Bogus Document cases, this is an extremely complex and specialist area of Australian immigration law and that is where a Master Migration Law with over 20 years experience may give you the edge you need.

Book a Consultation

Call 03 9614 0218 or email info@arlaw.com.au to make an initial 30 Minute consultation at our Melbourne office. (conditions apply)

For more go to   www.arlaw.com.au

Note: this update, or any previous updates on this page, do not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon as such. Please call our office to seek professional advice before acting or relying on any of the content on this page

The post Bogus Documents: AR LAW wins Another AAT PIC 4020 “visa refusal” Appeal Case. appeared first on Australian Immigration Lawyers Migration Agents in Melbourne.

(For more on “Singh” and the strict liability of PIC 4020 read my earlier blog)

https://www.arlaw.com.au/uncategorized/bogus-documents-pic-4020-fed-court-says-strict-absolutely/

In Brief, as stated in policy, Fraud within the Visa and Citizenship Programmes is a high risk for the Department. People may present bogus documents, conceal information or provide false or misleading information where they would otherwise fail to meet the criteria for a visa. They may commit fraud to facilitate people smuggling, human trafficking, drug trafficking or terrorist operations.

In order to manage the risks, appropriate mitigation strategies must be in place.

Public interest criterion (PIC) 4020 is 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. It also requires applicants to satisfy the delegate as to their identity.

PIC 4020 is one of the Public Interest Criteria in Sch 4 of the Migration Regulations 1994 (the Regulations). Where PIC 4020 is among the criteria for grant of a visa, unless the requirement to satisfy PIC 4020 is waived under PIC 4020(4), it must be met in order for the visa to be granted. Failure to satisfy PIC 4020 is grounds for visa refusal not for visa cancellation.

PIC 4020 contains two key areas:

1.Fraud relating to bogus documents and false or misleading information

2.Satisfaction with the applicant’s identity.

PIC 4020 enables refusal of a visa if the applicant provides a bogus document, or information that is false or misleading in a material particular in relation to the application for the visa.

As noted by Justice Buchanan in Trivedi when he held

For the reasons I have already given, it should be accepted that PIC 4020 is directed to information or documents which are purposely untrue.  It seems to me to be clear from the same analysis that the purpose of PIC 4020 was to render visa applicants ultimately responsible for the veracity of the information and documents supplied to support the application.  Although the limited terms of the waiver (and therefore any discretion to excuse non-compliance) make it apparent that innocent errors are not the focus of attention, it is equally clear that PIC 4020 is directed at the overall integrity of the visa system and as a bulwark against deception and fraud from any quarter associated with a visa applicant.  It is not inconsistent with a coherent public policy to make a visa applicant ultimately responsible for purposely untrue material provided with a visa application.  It would be an intolerable burden on the administration of the visa system to require that those assessing visa applications not only discover that information or documents are false in a material particular, but also that the visa applicant who provided them knew them to be so.  In many cases that would be impossible and would defeat the apparent intent of the provision.

It was against this backdrop that a client approached AR LAW Services – their 189 Skilled Visa had been refused due to the fact the case officer determined that the submitted work references where “bogus” documents.  The client had been badly assited and poorly advised by a migration agent who clearly did not have the required skill nor knowledge to manage such a visa application.

The incompetence of the Migration Agent is most telling and can be most clearly seen in the agents moronic and poorly drafted reply to the case offices “natural justice” letter. (This letter is a very important opportunity for visa applicants to “clarify” and hopefully sort out any integrity issue that may arise)

Given the migration agents borderline negligent reply to the case officer the visa was refused.

The client was desperate and understandably angry with the migration agent (and will probably sue) when he came to AR LAW Services. (The other issue was he filed his own AAT appeal consequently AR LAW Services had to do a great deal of remedial work to give the appeal any chance)

Following the securing of many original documents and sworn affidavits AR LAW Services made a detailed and voluminous submission to the Tribunal, where the basic construction of PIC 4020 and the relevant jurisprudence was contested.

The hearing was held recently at the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Perth and following a day of evidence AR LAW Services prevailed.

The applicant was found to have not been in breach of PIC 4020 and the visa application was remitted to the department for reconsideration.

That is, we won!

So if you or anyone you know has an Australian Visa refused or rejected on PIC 4020 or if you face an accusation that “false and misleading” information has been submitted in a visa application by you or on your behalf contact us to discuss your Appeal or Review options.  Remember TRUST ONLY a Master Migration Lawyer and make an appointment with AR LAW Services: Master Migration Lawyer.

Book a Consultation

Call 03 9614 0218 or email info@arlaw.com.au to make an initial 30 Minute consultation at our Melbourne office. (conditions apply)

For more go to   www.arlaw.com.au

Note: this update, or any previous updates on this page, do not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon as such. Please call our office to seek professional advice before acting or relying on any of the content on this page

The post AR LAW Services wins another important AAT case: PIC 4020, visa refusal for ‘Bogus’ documents: how the wrap got beat! appeared first on Australian Immigration Lawyers Migration Agents in Melbourne.

If you are a person holding an Australian visa you now will automatically fails the ‘character test’ if you have been sentenced to 12 months in prison for one or more offences. Conviction for the commission of a single, but more severe, criminal offence alone may be sufficient grounds for the Australian government to cancel your visa, or repeated convictions for less sever criminal offences can also lead to the cancellation of your visa. There are also various other considerations which the DIBP will look at to determine if it considers you to be of bad character and therefore, move to cancel your visa.

Consequently what maybe considered a “good deal’  for an Australian Citizen when negotiating a criminal “plea bargain” maybe a very bad deal for a visa holding foreign national.

That is where AR LAW Services may help, given we not only deal with migration and visa law but also we have almost 20 years experience in assisting people in police and criminal defense law.

So if you or someone you know is facing criminal or police matters or has had a visa refused or cancelled by s501  talk to us.

Or if you or anyone you know has an Australian Visa refused, rejected or cancelled due to police history or character grounds contact us to discuss your Appeal or Review options.  Remember TRUST ONLY a Master Migration Lawyer and make an appointment with AR LAW Services: Master Migration Lawyer.

Book a Consultation

Call 03 9614 0218 or email info@arlaw.com.au to make an initial 30 Minute consultation at our Melbourne office. (conditions apply)

For more go to   www.arlaw.com.au

Note: this update, or any previous updates on this page, do not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon as such. Please call our office to seek professional advice before acting or relying on any of the content on this page

The post Trouble with the Law? Why foreign nationals need special help when it comes to police matters appeared first on Australian Immigration Lawyers Migration Agents in Melbourne.

The Court also concluded that PIC 4020 applies even where “a visa applicant provides a non-bogus document to a migration agent or other intermediary, and the migration agent or intermediary alters the document in a way which renders it a bogus document for the purposes of the legislative scheme, and then provides that bogus document to the Department acting on behalf of the visa applicant”.

That is the Court held here was that even where an applicant provides a set of supporting documents to an “intermediary” – whether a migration agent or other person – and then that intermediary alters the document to render it “bogus” within the meaning of the Act  – then PIC 4020 is nonetheless engaged.

The court also held that in circumstances where the applicant had given his application materials to his brother-in-law to submit to the migration agent, where the applicant did not himself have any “direct contact” with the agent, and where the applicant had acknowledged that he had “submitted” his application:  “it was reasonably open to the AAT to find that the (applicant) provided to the Department the documents in support of his visa application, including the bogus document”.

Consequently the court has held that PIC 4020 does in fact create a regime of absolute and strict liability, that is an applicant will be held accountable for every document that is submitted to the Department, even where an “intermediary” creates a bogus document and the applicant has had no role whatsoever in creating the bogus document or sending it to the Department.

So if you or anyone you know has had a visa refused or a visa cancelled due to PIC 4020 or “Bogus Documents” make an appointment with a Master Migration Lawyer.

Book a Consultation

Call 03 9614 0218 or email info@arlaw.com.au to make an initial 30 Minute consultation at our Melbourne office. (conditions apply)

For more go to   www.arlaw.com.au

Note: this update, or any previous updates on this page, do not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon as such. Please call our office to seek professional advice before acting or relying on any of the content on this page

The post Bogus Documents – PIC 4020: Fed Court says Strict, Absolutely! appeared first on Australian Immigration Lawyers Migration Agents in Melbourne.

As reported the changes would have enabled the Department to refuse a visa application on PIC 4020 grounds if an applicant had given or caused to be given either a bogus document or information that was false or misleading in a material particular within the 10 year period before the visa application was made (expanding the period from 12 months under the previous version of PIC 4020) and expanding the coverage of PIC 4020 so that it would apply not only to visas actually held by the applicant but also to visa applications made by the applicant.

Click here for full story  https://www.sbs.com.au/news/visa-application-changes-dumped-in-senate-after-greens-motion-passes

So if you have problems with the law or if a visa application has been cancelled or refused due to  PIC 4020 or bad character book an appointment with us now.

Book a Consultation

Also you may wish to read this:

Extra Help of Visa Holders

Call 03 9614 0218 or email info@arlaw.com.au to make an initial 30 Minute consultation at our Melbourne office. (conditions apply)

For more go to   www.arlaw.com.au

Note: this update, or any previous updates on this page, do not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon as such. Please call our office to seek professional advice before acting or relying on any of the content on this page

The post PIC 4020 Proposed Change Disallowed by Senate appeared first on Australian Immigration Lawyers Migration Agents in Melbourne.