Federal Court. The appellant answered a question in a student visa application form, indicating he had never had previous visa refusals. In reality, he had had student visa refusals. Was it unnecessary for the Tribunal to explain in any detail the basis upon which it considered the impugned answer was relevant to cl 500.212 (GTE criterion)? Did PIC 4020(5)(b) require determination of whether cl 500.212 was satisfied? May an applicant's provision of such false or misleading information be a 'relevant matter' within the meaning of cl 500.212(c)?
PIC 4020(5) provided: "information that is false or misleading in a material particular means information that is: (a) false or misleading at the time it is given; and (b) relevant to any of the criteria the Minister may consider when making a decision on an application, whether or not the decision is made because of that information."
Clause 500.212(a) of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth) required the appellant to be "a genuine applicant for entry and stay as a student because ... the applicant intends genuinely to stay in Australia temporarily". Clause 500.212(c) allowed the Tribunal to consider "any other relevant matter" in determining whether the appellant was "a genuine applicant for entry and stay as a student".
The Tribunal found as follows:
23. On balance, the Tribunal is satisfied the impugned answer 'no' was given by the applicant, and there is evidence before the Tribunal that the applicant gave to the Minister, or a relevant assessing authority, being the Department, information that is a purposeful falsity, and that the impugned answer is false or misleading in a material particular as defined in PIC 4020; and, the answer is relevant to the criteria the Minister may consider when deciding whether to grant the Student visa pursuant to cl.500.212 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations.
Despite the terms of PIC 4020(5)(b), the Tribunal did not explain in any detail the basis upon which it considered that the impugned answer was relevant to the criteria in cl 500.212.
Some of the questions to the Federal Court (FCA) were as follows:
Question 1: Was it unnecessary for the Tribunal to explain in any detail the basis upon which it considered the impugned answer was relevant to the criteria in cl 500.212, as that was matter that followed objectively and clearly from the terms of cl 500.212 itself?
Question 2: Did PIC 4020(5)(b) require the Minister to determine whether cl 500.212 was satisfied?
Question 3: May an applicant's provision of such false or misleading information also be a 'relevant matter' within the meaning of cl 500.212(c)?
The FCA answered those questions as follows: