A family of three who believed they met the criteria for grant of a permanent visa have had their court appeal rejected for the simple fact that one of the documents in the original application was considered ‘purposely untrue’ and not an ‘innocent error’.

PIC 4020, also known as the “application integrity” criteria because it allows for a visa application to be refused upon the discovery of fraudulent documents in an application, was recently tested and upheld as a valid criteria by the Federal Court. However, while the court held that “it is not necessary to conclude that a visa applicant is aware that information is “purposely untrue” it noted that PIC 4020 is not directed to information or documents which are “innocent errors”.

PIC 4020 was aimed to close loopholes on dodgy documents and responses in visa applications, including the practice whereby applicants could go unpunished after the tactical withdrawal of a dodgy document. Since 2011, PIC 4020 has enabled refusal of a visa if an applicant provides a bogus document or information that is false or misleading in relation to their application.

The applicant in this matter, when queried by DIBP about the incorrect IELTs test certificates submitted with an application, admitted that it was incorrect. She claimed to have submitted it wrongly, due to misguidance by certain agents in India. In statements to the court, “She begged that she be forgiven,” and that in fact she subsequently achieved the required English outcome.

The DIBP, the MRT and the court rejected these arguments, which in the past may have carried some weight, The visa application was refused for herself, her husband and their son for a breach of regulation 886.22 4(d) which in essence states that at the time of decision, “No evidence has become available since the time of application that the information given or used…was false or misleading in a material particular.”

"A Brisbane father says he is concerned for his eight-month-old son, whose Vietnamese mother faces deportation from Australia" 

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-04-18/father-david-ngugen-fears-deportation-of-baby-vietnamese-mother/5399100

I came across this article and I am concerned about its possible implications if the Government has indeed changed its policy.

After studying the size of international student populations for its 2014 Global Cities Index, Global consultancy firm A.T. Kearney has concluded that it is not London, Paris, New York or Singapore that is the favourite destination for international students to live, learn and play.

The most popular city in the world for international university students is Sydney. The economic hub of Australia has beat more than 83 cities including London, Paris and New York to the coveted spot.

Reporting the results of the firm’s findings, the Sydney Morning Herald noted that the federal government figures show that Sydney is home to an estimated 50,000 international students studying at the city's universities, with another 50,000 studying vocational and English courses.

Speaking to the newspaper Sydney Lord mayor Clover Moore said the council's figures showed about 35,000 international students studied on campuses in the City of Sydney and more than 10,000 lived in the local government area

"Our community of international students improves the city's prosperity and liveability," Ms Moore said.

I have just received  interesting e-mail clearly indicating, that some education offshore agents are provided with access to facilities RMA have no access to . Does it mean DIBP can trust them more than us?

see below :

DIBP recently issued a new form 80 (dated 04/2014) where the 30 year requirement for travel and address history has been backtracked to the previous requirement of 10 years for all but refugee and humanitarian visa applicants – Looks like the DIBP is reading the MA website and paying attention to our lobbying. Great outcome!

 Special thanks to Mark Northam on our Committee for this news.