Case Study Analysis: Australia Visa System, PIC 4020, and Visa Refusal

This case study examines the application of Public Interest Criterion 4020 (PIC 4020) within the Australian visa system, using the case of Tim Chan's application for a subclass 186 visa as a central example. The analysis explores the importance of satisfying PIC 4020, which requires applicants to provide truthful and non-misleading information to ensure public safety and security. The case highlights potential grounds for visa refusal due to false or concealed information, including a prior conviction for driving under the influence and concealment of this fact in a previous visa application. The study then delves into methods by which an applicant can address PIC 4020 concerns, such as through a natural justice letter, requesting a waiver, or appealing the decision. The advantages and disadvantages of each method are discussed, and the case concludes with a recommendation that Tim Chan should utilize the natural justice letter to clarify the information and address the issues raised by the Department of Home Affairs. The assignment provides a comprehensive overview of the visa application process and the implications of PIC 4020 in the context of Australian immigration law, referencing relevant legal literature to support the arguments presented.

1
Australia Visa System
Student’s Name:
Student’s Number:

2
Question 1
Introduction
The Public Interest Criteria 4020, mostly abbreviated as (PIC 4020) is an integral part in
the application of a visa. While applying for the visa, it is important to satisfy certain
conditions for the welfare of the public of the state, where the person demanding such
application to be fulfilled, must comply with all the needs1. The biggest of all the
conditions is that the public does not get deteriorated or affected with such a person’s
stay or entry in Australia2. Therefore, it holds a very important position that the interest
of the public safety and security are fulfilled at every price. No criminal must be allowed
to enter and stay in Australia. Where there is a need for a PIC 4020 in the application of
the visa, the Department of the Home Affairs must be satiated with the immigrant’s
personal details3. This department must be able to rely on the information that such an
immigrant would not be harmful or perilous for the members of the society at large4. All
information, documents and records which are required to be provided in the visa
application in presence of PIC 4020, must be true to the knowledge of the applicant. All
the personal details, knowledge, records and documents must be devoid of falsity of
facts and not misrepresented.
1 Anna Boucher, Submission to the Skilled Visa Review and Deregulation
Taskforce’s (John Wiley, 2015).
2 Sherene Ozyurek and Rodger Fernandez, ‘Combatting fraud as a disincentive of
an unintended economic migrant: A comparative review of the direct Turkish model and
the indirect Australian model’ (2016) 6(1) Border Crossing 16-26.
3 Susanne Bahn and Rosalyn Cameron, Skilled labour supply and demand in
resource rich regions in Australia (Lawson, 2012).
4 Francisco Rowe, Jonathan Corcoran, and Alessandra Faggian, ‘Mobility patterns
of overseas human capital in Australia: the role of a ‘new’graduate visa scheme and
rural development policy’ (2013) 44(2) Australian Geographer 177-195.

3
Application and Issue
For the visa (whether temporary or permanent) to be a valid one, it is of pivotal
importance that the PIC 4020 is satisfied. There can be chances where the Department
can refuse the 186 visa application. In the present case, it is Tim Chan’s 186 visa is in
issue. It can be refused by the Department of Home Affairs in case there is the
presence of false or misleading information in the application of the visa. Another
ground on which it can be refused is when the Department of Home Affairs is not
satisfied with the identity of the applicant5. To be precise, when there is the presence of
false references in work or, improper records of the works, concealment of facts, lying in
relation to the subjects of the state or replying falsely to the questions asked, there can
be a refusal of the 186 visa application due to PIC 40206.
The result of the refusal of the 186 visa application due to PIC 4020, can have serious
effects. The immigrant can be forced to leave the country. To add to this, the immigrant
would be restricted to file an application for visa in the next ten years7. Besides these,
the visa could be stopped from being granted to the members of the family of such
immigrant.
Conclusion
Thus, in the present case, Tim Chan’s 186 visa application could be refused due to PIC
4020. The reasons supporting the above statement include many instances. Firstly, it
was found in the investigation of the police that Tim had been convicted of an offence in
5 Janet Phillips and Joanne Simon-Davies, Migration to Australia: a quick guide to
the statistics (Parliamentary Library, 2016).
6 Robert Carr, ‘The safe haven visa policy: a compassionate intervention with
cruel intentions’ (2012) Australian Policy and History 1-7.
7 Fidelma Breen, ‘Australian Immigration Policy in Practice: a case study of skill
recognition and qualification transferability amongst Irish 457 visa holders’ (2016) 47(4)
Australian Geographer 491-509.

4
New South Wales in August, 2013 under Drive with Middle Range Prescribed
Concentration of Alcohol. Secondly, he had concealed the same fact in the previous
application of 457 visas. Thirdly, there had been concealment of facts and misleading
statements on his part. Thus, it is of utmost importance that the PIC 4020 would have to
be satisfied with sufficient cause as to why they should grant him the visa. But the
above the details contain those conditions which can be proved to be against the rules
of satisfaction for PIC 4020.
Therefore, Tim’s visa application may be refused due to PIC 4020 on the ground of
dissatisfaction of the important criterion to accept such applications for visa in Australia.
Question 2
There are certain ways in which Tim Chan may be able to satisfy PIC 4020 in order to
receive the grant of 186 visa. These methods include:
i) By Natural Justice Letter:
Through this option, before the visa application is refused by the Department of Home
Affairs and PIC 4020, it is by way of a letter the applicant would justify the conditions
which have made PIC 4020 refuse his application. The applicant can state reasonable
causes for the misleading information or state about the concealment of the facts or
correct the incorrect information with regard to him, in the application. In this natural
justice letter, the applicant can also state about the presence of grounds of waiver that
could alter the flaws in the application.
ii) By requesting a Waiver:
The Department of Home Affairs possesses the power to waive the decision of PIC
4020 under situations, when they refuse the grant of application of the visa. The
department must be aware of the true identification of the applicant and understand that
the application must be granted for the welfare of the people of Australia8. This waiver
8 Joanna Howe, Andrew Stewart, and Rosemary Owens, ‘Temporary migrant
labour and unpaid work in Australia’ (2018) 40 Sydney L. Rev. 183.

5
system would also be applicable to the permanent residents of Australia under
compassionate and sympathetic situations.
iii) By Appeal:
The decision of the PIC 4020 is open for appeal to the Department of Home Affairs after
the passage of the non-grant period. Such a decision can be cancelled, altered and
substituted by the higher authority9.
Thus, these are the options by which Tim may be able to satisfy PIC 4020 so that he
can be granted the 186 visa application.
a) The common advantages of the Natural Justice Letter method, appeal method
and the waiver method is that it provides the applicant with another opportunity of
rectifying his bona fide mistakes and earns his reward through the visa. In case
of compelling situations, where the applicant was forced to provide with different
facts under coercion or under complete ignorance, these methods can be very
beneficial as it gives an opportunity of correcting those flaws10.
The disadvantages of these methods include the giving of a chance to an
offender who is not worthy of the 186 visa. Sometimes, offenders try to fool the
higher authorities and try to prove those conditions regarding themselves which
are untrue. Once they are refused, they are given another opportunity of proving
the wrong information in a different way.
b) In my opinion, Tim should opt for the second method, that is, by way of Natural
Justice Letter, since it would be most beneficial for him.
9 Nicholas G Procter, ‘Providing mental health support for Protection Visa
applicants in Australian immigration detention: partnering mental health support and
migration law consultation’ (2011) 18(3) Psychiatry, Psychology and Law 460-465.
10 Anna Katherine Boucher, Marketisation of immigrant skills assessment in
Australia (Sage, 2013).

6
c) Tim should opt for the second method, that is, by way of Natural Justice Letter.
This is so because, with the aid of this letter, Tim would be able to express his
conditions completely to the concerned authorities. It would help him to provide
with the reasonable causes within the sufficient period of time and the concerned
authority would be able to understand. This method ensures that Tim would be
able to correct all the false information given by him and instead of that, he would
furnish with the correct piece of information11. He would be able to rectify all his
mistakes and get away with all the frauds or misrepresentations or mistakes
committed by him in the past12. It would provide him with all the opportunities to
furnish with proper information and the reveal those facts which were concealed
in the previous 457 visa application.
11 Iain Campbell and Joo-Cheong Tham, ‘Labour market deregulation and
temporary migrant labour schemes: An analysis of the 457 visa program’ (2013) 25(3)
Australian Journal of Labour Law 67.
12 Mary Crock and L. A. Berg, Immigration, refugees and forced migration: law,
policy and practice in Australia (Federation Press, 2011).

7
References
Bahn, Susanne, and Rosalyn Cameron, Skilled labour supply and demand in resource
rich regions in Australia (Lawson, 2012).
Boucher, Anna Katherine, Marketisation of immigrant skills assessment in Australia
(Sage, 2013).
Boucher, Anna, Submission to the Skilled Visa Review and Deregulation Taskforce’s
(John Wiley, 2015).
Breen, Fidelma, ‘Australian Immigration Policy in Practice: a case study of skill
recognition and qualification transferability amongst Irish 457 visa holders’ (2016) 47(4)
Australian Geographer 491-509.
Campbell, Iain, and Joo-Cheong Tham, ‘Labour market deregulation and temporary
migrant labour schemes: An analysis of the 457 visa program’ (2013) 25(3) Australian
Journal of Labour Law 67.
Carr, Robert, ‘The safe haven visa policy: a compassionate intervention with cruel
intentions’ (2012) Australian Policy and History 1-7.
Crock, Mary, and L. A. Berg, Immigration, refugees and forced migration: law, policy
and practice in Australia (Federation Press, 2011).
Howe, Joanna, Andrew Stewart, and Rosemary Owens, ‘Temporary migrant labour and
unpaid work in Australia’ (2018) 40 Sydney L. Rev. 183.
Ozyurek, Sherene, and Rodger Fernandez, ‘Combatting fraud as a disincentive of an
unintended economic migrant: A comparative review of the direct Turkish model and the
indirect Australian model’ (2016) 6(1) Border Crossing 16-26.
Phillips, Janet, and Joanne Simon-Davies, Migration to Australia: a quick guide to the
statistics (Parliamentary Library, 2016).

8
Procter, Nicholas G, ‘Providing mental health support for Protection Visa applicants in
Australian immigration detention: partnering mental health support and migration law
consultation’ (2011) 18(3) Psychiatry, Psychology and Law 460-465.
Rowe, Francisco, Jonathan Corcoran, and Alessandra Faggian, ‘Mobility patterns of
overseas human capital in Australia: the role of a ‘new’graduate visa scheme and rural
development policy’ (2013) 44(2) Australian Geographer 177-195.