190비자를 그란트 된 다음에 1년 10개월 이 지난 다음에 이민성에 소식을 접합니다. NOICC를 받고 자신이 거짓 정보를 제출하지 않았음을 밝혀야 하는 신세가 됩니다. 그럼에도 불구하고 그의 190 비자는 취소가 되고 2년 넘게 AAT 의사결정이 그의 손을 들어주는데 까지 마음이 얼마나 불편했을까 당사자는 아니지만 심히 이해가 됩니다. 아래 시간별 요약내용입니다.

이란국적 78년 9월 생

2013년 10월 16일 190 비자 신청

2015년 1월 28일 190 비자 그란트

2017년 11월 28일 NOICC 발행

2018년 1월 31일 비자 취소

2018년 2월  AAT 재심 신청

2020년 2월 17일 AAT 결정 (set aside)

[본문] 관련 케이스의 전문은 이곳을 클릭하면 볼 수 있음 

[GoodToKnow] 자신이 원치 않았지만 어쩌다 잘 모르고 incorrect information을 제출한 경우 이민성에 통보를 하세요. 수정요청하는 답변입니다.

이 사건의 전말은 그 신청인이 시험을 봤다고 하는 대학 (이슬람 아자드 대학)으로 부터 2013년 7월 18일 대리인을 이용하여 IELTS 시험을 치뤘다는 사실을 이민성이 알고 부터 시작됩니다. 그때가 2016년 12월 2일 (190 비자가 그란트 된 3년 1개월 조금 넘은 시점임; 비자가 그란트 된 다음에도 이렇게 서로 정보를 확인하는 작업을 이민성에서 밑물 작업을 한다는 사실을 눈여겨 봐야 합니다)

On 2 December 2016 the Department received information from the Islamic Azad University IELTS IAU that the visa holder used an imposter to sit the IELTS test for him on 18 July 2013.

NOICC는 이민성 case officer가 발행하는 것으로 비자를 취소하겠다. 이유는 이러 이러하다. 이에 대해 할 말 있다면 해라. 언제까지가 보통 포함됩니다. 그런데 이민법 107 항목에 의하면 반드시 이민성 case officer는 그가 하나 또는 그 이상의 거짓 정보가 확실하다는 확신을 가지고 있어야 하며 그렇지 않으면 이런 NOICC를 함부로 visa holder에게 발행할 수 없습니다. 그러나 누가 봐도 시험을 치룬 곳으로 부터 대리인을 이용하여 시험을 봤다고 한다면 이것은 거짓정보 / 가짜 정보를 제출한 것과 같은 것입니다.

그런데 그는 본인은 그런 적이 없고 대리인을 사용한 적이 없다. 그 연락을 했다는 대학에 연락을 하여 알아 보니 그 대학은 자신에 대한 정보를 이민성에 보낸적이 없다고 하니 이때 부터 일이 꼬이는 것이 되는 것이죠. (In his written response to the NOICC the applicant states that he did not provide incorrect information or a bogus document in support of his visa application and claims that he did sit the IELTS test on 18 July 2013 and did not use an imposter. The applicant stated that when he received the NOICC, he contacted the AZAD University IELTS Centre but was advised that they do not have any record of sending information about him to the Australian authorities but requested more time to research their archives.)

아래 긴 이야기 짧게 하면 다방면으로 AAT 재심기관에서 정보를 받지만 “증거불충분” 하다는 결론으로 영주비자 취소가 이뤄질 수 없다고 하여 이민성 결정이 잘못 되었다고 결정을 합니다.

14. The Tribunal forwarded the applicant’s claims to IDP Australia to verify the information. On 3 November 2018 the Tribunal received advice from IDP Australia confirming that
    1. NOET in Iran indicated to IDP that the applicant had used an imposter to sit the test, as a result of which his results were cancelled. The cancellation of the results was on the basis of a reasonable suspicion of malpractice in the testing.
    2. IDP has neither received, nor holds any information indicating that the report of the applicant using an imposter was incorrect. IDP received the applicant’s claims but do not have any material corroborating that assertion.
    100. The applicant’s test results are no longer valid.
15. The Tribunal wrote to the applicant pursuant to s. 359A of the Act seeking his comments and response to the above information. The applicant replied on 19 November 2018. The applicant agrees that the IELTS test results have been declared invalid in July 2016, before the cancellation of these by the IDP in 2016. The applicant states that at the time of his visa application, the test results were valid and the answers he provided on the form were truthful and accurate and he maintains that he did not mislead the Department and did not provide a bogus document. The Tribunal acknowledges that at the time of visa application the results were valid but that does not preclude the existence of the basis to cancel a visa where new information subsequently comes to light and where it is found in a subsequent investigation that an imposter completed the IELTS test.
16. The applicant states that he was not involved in the process leading to the cancellation and was not given an opportunity to respond to the allegation and is ignorant of the process leading to NOET finding. The Tribunal is of the view that the applicant has been given that opportunity throughout the visa cancellation process. The applicant states that he has not been provided with actual evidence of any wrongdoing beyond the assertion by NOET that an imposter was employed. The applicant notes that the cancellation of results was based on ‘reasonable suspicion of malpractice” which is not an adequate basis for making a positive finding that the applicant used an imposter to sit the exam, nor that he provided misleading information or a bogus document.
17. The applicant states that the passage of time between him sitting the IELTS exam and the allegations raise doubts about the veracity of the NOET conclusion. The applicant suggests that the NOET investigator was influenced by the applicant’s circumstances and relied on the lesser standards of reasonable suspicion to reach a negative conclusion. The Tribunal is of the view that there is no basis whatsoever for these assertions. The delay may have equally been the result of resourcing issues rather than any issue to which the applicant refers. There is no basis to suggest that the NOET investigator acted without due regard to all relevant evidence or that the investigator acted inappropriately in any way because of the applicant’s circumstances. The Tribunal rejects these submissions.
18. The applicant states that if there was any evidence to support NOET conclusion, he would have been given that evidence to respond to and the absence of procedural fairness undermines the credibility of the decision to cancel his results and the Tribunal’s reliance on that process. With respect, it is for this Tribunal to determine what weight to place on the evidence, including the NOET investigations. Even if the applicant was denied procedural fairness by NOET or IDP (the Tribunal makes no finding on the issue), that does not detract from the fact that there is power to cancel a visa if it is found that an applicant has not complied with certain provisions in the Act. The applicant does not suggest that he had been denied procedural fairness in relation to the visa cancellation process.
19. The applicant refutes the allegations that he used an imposter to sit the IELTS test and claims that he can provide evidence about the examinations he took at Azad University, as well as evidence of his English proficiency. The applicant refers to his study and employment in Australia, which he claims are consistent with him being proficient in English and capable of having done the IELTS exam himself without the need to employ an imposter. The Tribunal is mindful, however, that the applicant may have sat other tests at Azad University and he may well have done a test other than the one on which he relied in his visa application, so the applicant’s knowledge of the test procedures does not necessarily establish that he sat the test in question. Neither does the applicant’s subsequent study and employment. The issue here is not whether the applicant has proficient English (and the Tribunal is not satisfied it can be demonstrated by the applicant undertaking study or employment). The issue is whether the applicant undertook the particular test on 18 July 2013 and achieved the particular scores set out in the Test Report Form which he presented with his visa application.
20. In his submission to the Tribunal of 28 January 2019 the applicant provided evidence of his communication with the authorities in Iran and a copy of the Final Order of the Tehran Province Court of Law. The Order names the applicant as the plaintiff and Mr Ramin Davatgar as a defendant and refers to the charges of fraud and fraudulent use of name. The Order states that due to lack of satisfactory evidence, prosecution is prohibited. It is unclear how this document assists the applicant, given that the court appears to have found that here is no basis for the applicant’s allegation of fraud.
21. In April 2019 the Tribunal received advice from the overseas post that the authenticity of the document could not be confirmed but the test result was believed non-genuine. At the applicant’s request the Tribunal sought further verification of the test results. On 14 February 2020 the Tribunal received further advice from the overseas post. That advice states, essentially, that “there is no reliable report or evidence which can prove Mr Hassan Hamrang’s fraud in his IELTS exam.”
22. The Tribunal acknowledges that the verification does not positively exonerate the applicant and does not expressly indicate that he did sit the IELTS test. However, having regard to the investigation of the overseas post and the advice from the relevant agencies, the Tribunal does not consider that the information that formed the basis of the cancellation is sufficient to override other evidence submitted by the applicant.
23. In Zhao v MIMA [2000] FCA 1235 the Court stated at [25] and [32].

The decision-maker, acting under s 116, must be satisfied of one or other of the matters set out in that section before the visa can be cancelled. That state of satisfaction is a real state of satisfaction which must be reached on a consideration of the available material. A visa cannot be cancelled simply because the visa holder has failed to show cause why it should not. … A visa cannot be cancelled because the decision-maker has identified a possible ground of cancellation which the visa holder has not been able to rebut.

아자드 대학에서 제공한 정보는IELTS 시험을 치루는데 대리인을 사용했다는 긍정적인 만족을 이루는데  불충분하다고 최종 판단합니다.

25. Having regard to the most recent advice, the Tribunal has formed the view that the information supplied by Azad University is not sufficient to lead to a positive satisfaction that the applicant used an imposter to sit the IELTS test. The Tribunal finds that there was no non-compliance by the applicant in the way described in the s.107 notice. It follows that the discretionary power to cancel the applicant’s visa does not arise.

AAT 재심관은 아래와 같이 이민법 조항 107하에 법을 어겼다고 만족할 수 없고 그의 비자를 취소할 수 있는 권한을 야기할 수 없다고 봄.

26. As the Tribunal is not satisfied that there was non-compliance by the applicant in the way described in the notice given under s.107 of the Act, it follows that the discretionary power to cancel the applicant’s visa does not arise.

결정문

AAT는 재심을 한 결과 그 결정은 잘못된 것이고 비자소지자의 190 비자를 취소하지 않는 결정을 대체하라고 판정합니다.

27. The Tribunal sets aside the decision under review and substitutes a decision not to cancel the applicant’s Subclass 190 – Skilled – Nominated visa.

해피엔딩이지만 2년넘게 호주에 마음 고생을 하고 시간과 돈 그리고 노력을 다 했을까 싶습니다.

아무튼 좋은 결과로 마무리되어 다행이고 이민법무사인 저도 이런 케이스도 있고 향후 저한테 이런 케이스가 발생하면 대처를 어떻게 해야 할지 공부가 되는 간접 경험이었습니다.

기술이민전문 물맑은 호주이민닷컴

이민법무사 (0208335)

신순철