2014년 4월 4일 판정된 케이스로서 호주 비자를 준비하시는 분들이 모두 읽어 보면 도움이 될 내용입니다.

이민성에 가짜 정보를 제공하는 것은 결국에는 큰 문제를 야기시킴을 상기시켜 주는 좋은(?) 케이스입니다.

MIGRATION – provision of information that is false or misleading in a material particular – whether information must be provided knowingly – Public Interest Criterion 4020 – no jurisdictional error – appeal dismissed

비자는 skilled -sponsored visa (subclass 886) 이란 영주비자 (on-shore) 가 있었고 (이비자는 2013년 1월 1일 이전에 소멸됨) 이때 기본적으로 IELTS 6.0 x 4를 반드시 제출해야 했었습니다.

2009년 7월 27일  – 886 비자 신청 (호주에서 2년간 공부를 마치고 6개월 이내에 신청해야 했었음) 해당 비자는 신청인의 친인척이 스폰서를 해 줘야 신청하는 비자임.

그녀의 IELTS 성적이  listening – 6.5, reading – 6.0, writing – 6.5, and speaking – 6.0 라고 했습니다. 시험은 21 March 2009 날 봤고 신청서에 이 성적과 날짜 IELTS 참고번호를 기재를 합니다.

이것이 문제였습니다.

이민성에서 IELTS Centre에 해당 성적을 확인하는 과정에서 결과를 받은 것은 아래 내용이었습니다.

listening band – 6.5, reading band – 6.0, writing band – 5.5 and speaking band – 5.5.

즉, 쓰기와 말하기에서 과락이 있는 것입니다.

이민성에서는 이런 경우 편지로 신청인에게 이에 대한 언급을 하라는 기회를 제공합니다. 2010년 10월 1일 그녀에게 편지가 제공됩니다.

(By letter dated 1 December 2010, this information was drawn to the attention of the first appellant and she was invited to comment.)

죄송합니다만 그때 제가 제정신이 아니라서 가짜 정보를 보냈습니다 라고 솔직하게 이야기를 하든 아니든 이민성에서는 답변을 하든 하지 않든 일정한 시간이 흐르면 거절하고 또 답변이 와도 봐주는 것 거의 없습니다. 그래서 refusal letter 를 받습니다

당연히 그녀는 MRT 재심을 요청합니다. (지금은 AAT로 통합된 재심기관임)

그리고 MRT 재심이 진행되는 동안; 지금이나 예나 거의 2년 가까이 기다려야 하는 상황에서 2011년 2월에 시험을 봐서 만족할 성적을 마련합니다. 2011년 3월 8일 MRT 재심기관에 제출을 합니다.

(영어성적이 나왔으니 한숨 돌렸을지 모릅니다만…)

재심기관은 예전에 (즉 886 비자 신청을 할때) 왜 incorrect information을 제출했는지 이유를 묻는 편지를 보냅니다.

On the same day, 18 March 2011, another letter was sent to the first appellant, again inviting her to comment on the provision of the earlier incorrect information.

이에 대해 신청인은 agent를 통해 이렇게 말해 달라고 합니다. (On 21 March 2011 the migration agent replied on her behalf:)

She said that it was not a right document. (올바른 문서가 아니었다고 말했다)

She submitted it wrongly, because she said that she was misguided by certain agents in India. (인도에 있는 어떤 에이전트가 잘못 인도해줬기 때문에 그 서류를 잘못 제출했다)

She said that she was very sorry for that, she should not have been so gullible and have trusted so scrupulous agents. (매우 유감이며 너무 잘 속지 않았어야 하고 양심적인 에이전트를 믿었어야 했다고)

She said that she did wrong and had not intention to rely on that for a positive result from the department. (그녀가 말하길 잘못했고 이민성으로 부터 좋은 결과를 위해서 이것을 의도적으로 사용한 것 아니었다)

So she has been working hard to do IELTS again and again. Eventually she achieved the required standards for competent English. (영어성적을 확보하기 위해서 열심히 했고 결국 원하는 점수를 확보했다)

She requested that the Department accept her deep repentance for that matter and wished to draw a deep lesson from that. (그녀가 요기하길 이민성에서 이 문제에 대해 깊은 뉘우침을 받아주고 그것으로 부터 큰 매움을 갖도록 원한다)

She begged that she be forgiven, and she has achieved the required English outcome by her own efforts anyway. (용서를 바라며 아무튼 그녀 자신의 노력으로 요구되는 영어성적을 확보했다고) 

긴 이야기를 여기서 줄일까 합니다만

1. 이민성에서 거절했고
2. MRT 재심을 신청했고
3. 영어 성적 확보했으니 봐달라고 요청을 했습니다.

MRT 재심관은 어떻게 판정을 했을까요?

그녀가 모른다고 볼 수 없다 입니다. 그럼으로 PIC 4020라고 하여 false information 이 포함된 bogus document를 (의도적으로) 제출했다고 판정을 하고 이민성의 손을 들어 줍니다.

14. In its decision the MRT said:
    52. The applicant has claimed that she has no knowledge of how the results came to differ between the test report form that she provided to the department and the results that she achieved. She has claimed that she was not aware that there was a problem until the department wrote to her inviting her to comment on the information. She claimed that she undertook two tests in India and that she had left India before she received the results from the 21 March 2009 test and received them by post upon her return to Australia, through her in-laws. The applicant claimed that when she went to take the test on 21 March 2009, the supervisor of the test came and spoke to her as she appeared stressed and told her that he could “fix up” her results after she told him she had failed a number of times. It was submitted that the applicant was not personally involved in or aware of the deception and that she did not wilfully or voluntarily provide a bogus document to the department. It was further submitted that the applicant did not intentionally mislead the department and thus the result was not provided by herself but was imposed on her.

53. However, the requirements in PIC 4020 apply whether or not the document is provided by the applicant knowingly or unwittingly: Vyas v MIAC [2012] FMCA 92. Accordingly, the Tribunal finds that once there is evidence that the applicant has given a bogus document or information that is false or misleading in a material particular, PIC 4020 applies, regardless of how such a document came into existence or came to be given. It is, therefore, unnecessary to consider the applicant’s knowledge or otherwise when considering this aspect of PIC 4020.

…

57. The applicant did not claim that she had in fact achieved the scores in the test report form for the IELTS test on 21 March 2009 that she submitted. Given that there is no dispute about this matter, the Tribunal finds on the evidence before it that the applicant achieved the test scores for the IELTS test on 21 March 2009 that were listed on the IELTS verification website and not the scores contained in the IELTS test result form that was submitted to the department by the applicant. The Tribunal finds that the test report form submitted by the applicant contained false or misleading information because the scores contained in that test report form were not correct.

…

61. In respect of whether the test report form itself is a ‘bogus document’ for the purposes of PIC4020(1)(a), paragraph (b) of the definition of ‘bogus document’ in section 97 of the Act provides that a bogus document means a document the Minister reasonably suspects is a document that is counterfeit or has been altered by a person who does not have authority to do so.

62. If the applicant’s claims are to be believed, a person who presented himself as working for IELTS at the test centre in Rajkot, India that she attended on 21 March 2009 arranged for a test report form that met the minimum requirements of having six or more in each test component to be provided to her without her knowledge. As her results do not match the official records of IELTS for the test reference number [number stated], it appears that the document is counterfeit or has been altered by a person who does not have authority to do so. However, as the Tribunal has found that there is evidence that the applicant has given, or caused to be given to the Minister or an officer, information that is false or misleading in a material particular in relation to the application for the visa, it is unnecessary for the Tribunal to make a finding as to whether the applicant has given, or caused to be given, a bogus document.

그러나 이 신청인은 여기서 그치지 않고 이 MRT 재심 결정을 Federal Court 까지 어필을 합니다.

왜?

MRT 재심에서 판정에 실수가 있다고 주장하면서

그러나 연방정부에서도 애초에 그녀는 고의적으로 잘못된 성적을 알고 제출했기 때문에

이민성의 실수도 아니고 재심의 판정 에러도 없는 있는 그대로 그녀는 incorrect information / false information이 포함된 자신의 IELTS 성적 문서를 제출헀기 때문에 이 어필도 받아 들여지지 않아 결국 패소되고 재판비용까지 지불하게 되는 최악의 경우를 봅니다.

The grounds of appeal

51. The grounds of appeal relied on by the appellants are as follows:

Grounds of appeal

1. The Federal Circuit Court erred in failing to find that the decision of the Migration Review Tribunal dated 30 November 2012 was affected by jurisdictional error by reason that the Tribunal failed to determine whether the first appellant knowingly provided false or misleading information in relation to her visa application.

2. The Federal Circuit Court erred in failing to find that the decision of the Migration Review Tribunal dated 30 November 2012 was affected by jurisdictional error by reason that the Tribunal asked itself the wrong question and/or failed to consider a relevant matter by finding that PIC 4020(1) was satisfied whether or not the first appellant knowingly provided false or misleading information in relation to her visa application.

52. As to Ground 1 of the appeal, for the reasons I have given, it was not necessary for the MRT to find that the first appellant knowingly provided false information, or to determine whether she knew or did not know that the information was false when she gave it.
53. As to Ground 2 of the appeal, in my respectful view the FCCA was correct to conclude that no mental element on the part of a visa applicant is required to engage PIC 4020. The information provided by the first appellant to the Minister’s Department was misleading and false. That information was provided both in the body of the application and in the form of the document which falsely stated the IELTS scores.

Conclusion

54. In summary, I conclude that:
    • PIC 4020(1) refers to information that is false, in the sense of purposely untrue;
    • it is not necessary to conclude that a visa applicant is aware that information is purposely untrue, before PIC 4020 is engaged;
    • the FCCA was correct to conclude that the MRT did not make a jurisdictional error when it found that PIC 4020 was engaged in the present case.
55. In my view, the appeal should be dismissed with costs.

전문보기는 여기를 클릭하세요.

PIC 4020에 대한 설명을 정리한 것은 여기를 클릭하세요.

많은 케이스를 접해 보지만 고의성이 있고 없고는 천지차이입니다.

예나 지금이나 저는 고의성을 가지고 범죄를 저지르는 것은 선처가 거의 없음에 확신을 하게 됩니다. 그래서 늘 양심적이고 바르게 서류를 제출해야 한다는 점을 강조하는 것입니다. 그래야 문제해결이 있기 때문입니다.

참고하세요.

호주기술이민전문 = MOMO Migration Service (since Feb 2002)

Soonchul Shin

Ironman RMA

Skilled Migration Specialist

Member of MIA

MARA Registered NO (0208335)

RMA 개인 Facebook(www.facebook.com/IronmanSoon)

회사 Facebook(www.facebook.com/IronmanRMA)