Offshore Partner Visa (SC309) Applicant Overcame PIC 4020 Refusal
Visa Applicant’s Background
Our client, a Nigerian national married to an Australian citizen, applied for an offshore Partner (Subclass 309) visa. The application was refused by the Department of Home Affairs under Public Interest Criterion 4020(2A) (‘PIC 4020(2A)’) on the basis that the delegate was not satisfied as to his identity. They made the refusal decision based on their findings that our client had submitted multiple passports with different dates of birth and names, and that he had previously used forged passports for visa applications to other countries.
Our client approached AHC Lawyers immediately after receiving the refusal decision from the Department of Home Affairs.
Our Assessment
PIC 4020(2A) requires that the visa applicant be able to satisfy the delegate as to their identity. It carries a strict 10-year bar from being granted a visa and cannot be waived like other PIC 4020 provisions.
In this case, the Department’s concern stemmed from significant inconsistencies across our client’s identity documents. Many lacked a date of birth, while others conflicted with each other, creating ambiguity about his identity.
Our Strategy
We retrieved all evidence submitted with the original visa application, together with the Department’s internal records, and conducted a thorough fact-finding process. Based on the results of our review, we immediately appealed the refusal decision to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (now the Administrative Review Tribunal), and prepared legal submissions addressing the Department’s primary concerns regarding our client’s identity. In our submissions, we:
Confirmed our client’s true identity with reliable sources, including primary and secondary school certificates and local government records of his place of birth, supported by statutory declarations and signed letters from long-term acquaintances, relatives, and teachers.
Explained the reasons for discrepancies in our client’s date of birth.
Provided evidence that our client was not eligible to obtain a birth certificate at the time of his birth due to Nigerian laws, and that poor record-keeping systems in Nigeria can result in documents containing errors or missing information.
Addressed the Department’s concerns regarding his previous provision of a forged passport under PIC 4020, which prohibits the submission of bogus documents and misleading information.
The Tribunal accepted our legal submissions, placing significant weight on both the evidence and explanations prepared by our team. Without the need for a hearing, the Tribunal set aside the refusal decision and found that the client satisfied the PIC 4020(2A) identity requirement.