1415985 [2015] MRTA 379 (27 February 2015) 一个理发师的900小时被怀疑造假，经过MRT的询问，成功摆脱4020. On the evidence, the Tribunal finds that the applicant genuinely completed 900 hours of work as a hairdresser at Gessi and that therefore the work reference given to TRA contains no false or misleading statement relevant to the matters TRA would consider when deciding whether to issue her with a positive skills assessment. Therefore, the skills assessment issued by TRA is not a bogus document by virtue of s.97(c), and there is no evidence it is a bogus document by reference to the other paragraphs of s.97.
1200038 [2015] MRTA 292 (26 February 2015)一个厨师的TRA900 小时怀疑造假，成功摆脱4020 Therefore, given the Tribunal’s positive impression of the applicant’s credibility, combined with the other considerations discussed above, the Tribunal is inclined to accept his evidence that he did complete more than 900 hours’ work experience as a cook at the Waterfront Fish Market in the relevant period.
1212346 [2015] MRTA 294 (25 February 2015)又一个TRA900 小时的厨师，因为移民局调查不严谨，成功摆脱4020 Therefore the Tribunal, on the basis of the evidence before it, is satisfied that there is no evidence that the applicant has 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 in relation to his application for a Skilled (Provisional) (Class VC) 485 visa or in relation to a visa that the applicant held in the period of 12 months before the application was made.
Therefore, the applicant meets cl.4020(1).
1415358 [2015] MRTA 375 (11 March 2015) 移民局证据不足，理发师摆脱4020.
In Talukder v MIAC & Anor [2009] FMCA 223, Driver FM found, (at [18] – [21]), that the word “evidence” requires an assessment of the quality of the evidence being relied on by the Tribunal before finding whether an applicant fails to satisfy the criterion: The Court stated that the use of the word “evidence” in cl.880.224 (as it was prior to 2 April 2011) “establishes that the clause requires something more than mere existence of information suggestive of falsity. It requires some probative information. In other words, a decision maker cannot simply take any information suggestive of falsity as sufficient for the purposes of the clause. The decision maker must satisfy himself or herself that the information is acceptable as evidence pointing to false or misleading information having been given for the purposes of establishing the validity of the visa application and that the falsity or misleading information was material to the visa application. This reasoning of the Federal Magistrates Court was endorsed when the matter was appealed to the Federal Court. In Talukder v MIAC [2009] FCA 916, Edmonds J affirming, at [20], that the evidence needs to be sufficiently probative to lead to a conclusion that the information given was false or misleading in a material particular.There is no indication as to when was Ms Kaur’s photograph presented to Ms Bremner taken. It is inheritably difficult and unreliable to rely on one photograph in making such an important determination.
1316506 [2015] MRTA 309 (17 March 2015)一个填错表的417 签证申请人，成功摆脱4020
While the 417 application provided incorrect information, the Tribunal is satisfied that there was no element of knowledge or intention on the part of the applicant. As the information was not purposely untrue but was a result of innocent, unintended or accidental matters, and following the reasoning in Trivedi, the Tribunal finds that the applicant has not given information that is false or misleading in a material particular.
1309873 [2015] MRTA 303 (17 March 2015)家庭关系无法证明的申请人，最后做了DNA测试，摆脱4020.
Taking all of the above evidence into account, including persuasive logical arguments put by the review applicant which were supported by documentary evidence, not least of all conclusive DNA results of sibling relationship, the Tribunal is left in no doubt whatsoever that the two respective mothers of the review applicant and the secondary visa applicant are full biological siblings. This being so, it follows that the review applicant and the secondary visa applicant are first cousins, as the first named visa applicant has consistently claimed.
Holt (Migration) [2020] AATA 2591 (22 June 2020) 澳洲配偶年龄大了，有生小孩的计划，加上经济上依赖申请人，考虑到澳洲担保人的利益豁免4020
The sponsor is 34 years of age, and underwent emergency surgery in 2016, and had further significant surgery in 2019. She is under the care of a medical specialist for her condition, and will require surgery if she is to have children. Naturally enough, the applicant is desirous of having children and a 3-year mandatory exclusion period for the applicant could significantly impact on this prospect. There is no set timeline for her proposed surgery at this stage, however it will necessitate her taking a lot of time off work as the projected recovery period is 9 weeks. A number of factors are contributing to the uncertainty over the timing of this surgery, including the applicant’s study, the current Covid-19 pandemic, and the present visa application.
The sponsor is very concerned as to whether she will be able to afford the required surgery in the United Kingdom. The applicant also gave evidence that he is concerned about the prospect of the sponsor suffering racial prejudice in the United Kingdom. The Tribunal accepts that the sponsor is dependent upon the applicant for financial and emotional support, and that this dependence is likely to increase over the coming year or two. The Tribunal also notes that this application has been on foot for nearly 3 years and 10 months, and the Tribunal accepts that this extended period of uncertainty would have impacted greatly on the sponsor, and exacerbated her health worries.
Taking all of the foregoing into account, the Tribunal finds that there are compelling circumstances that affect the interests of an Australian citizen, and justify the grant of the visa. The Tribunal therefore finds that by operation of cl.4020(4), PIC 4020 is satisfied.