• Sister - Mah Gul - age 17 years old in Afghan calendar year 1353

• Sister - Alia- age 15 years in Afghan calendar year 1353

• Sister - Zakia - age 13 years in Afghan calendar year 1353

1. Further discrepancies appear pertaining to the claims the applicant has made in his current application in regard to his siblings. The Tribunal noted at its hearing that the Department had reviewed the permanent residency visa applications of the three people the applicant claimed to be his siblings in the current Remaining Relative visa application. None of these people however declared him to be their sibling in their own declarations of their family composition.
2. It was furthermore noted in the delegate's decision record that when Jafar Sadat DOB: 5 June 1953 migrated to Australia, he did not declare the same parents' names that the applicant declared in the current visa application. It was furthermore noted, as outlined in the delegate's decision record, that when Sayeed Najebullah Hashimi DOB: 10 February 1972 migrated to Australia, submissions were made to the Department in his visa application in 2004 that he was "the only and last" family member of Tahira Hashimi DOB: 12 October 1932 (the sponsor and review applicant of the current application) living outside Australia.
3. The Tribunal considers there are significant and very serious discrepancies in the information the applicant provided about his siblings in this application and the individual earlier visa applications of the people the applicant claimed were his siblings.
4. The Tribunal also considers there are significant discrepancies in the address information the applicant provided in various Form 80s provided in this application between 2011 and 2022 (where the applicant declared only addresses in Afghanistan) and in his various Global Special Humanitarian (subclass 2020) visa applications between 2004 and 2006 where he declared variously he had been living in Pakistan and Iran as well as Afghanistan.
5. The Tribunal put this information to the review applicant's representative at its hearing. The review applicant's representative responded orally at the hearing, as well as providing extensive written submissions to the Tribunal.
6. The review applicant's representative has essentially denied either false or misleading information, or bogus documentation, has been provided in either the current application or in previous applications.
7. In relation to identity discrepancies pertaining to the applicant's (and family members) names and dates of birth, the review applicant's representative has stated these "discrepancies arouse due to factors beyond the applicants' control".
8. The claim has been made that these discrepancies are "transliteration variations" and are a result of the difficulties in transferring Afghan names written in a Dari script into English. The review applicant's representative at the Tribunal's hearing stated that people write their names in their own ways. Date discrepancies have been explained as conversion errors, with the transfer of dates from the Islamic Hirji calendar to the Gregorian calendar being held as conversion complexities rather than falsification.
9. Identity theft has also been submitted, with a supporting letter from the Afghan Community Support Association of NSW provided that states identity theft and misuse of personal information are widespread in Pakistan. The review applicant's representative submits "It is possible that some details of the Hashimi family were used without their knowledge in fraudulent applications submitted by others". The claim is the discrepancies may be identity misuse rather than misconduct by the applicant.
10. In relation to the inconsistencies in the evidence before the Tribunal pertaining to family composition, the review applicant has stated that cultural practices, where individuals use different names or nicknames, may be the cause. The review applicant's representative claims that variations in reporting family members are common, and this combined with war and displacement in Afghanistan makes consistent-record keeping challenging.
11. Inconsistencies in family composition in the applications are also blamed on the reliance by the applicant and his family on third parties to assist with the filling out of forms. This assistance is provided by people that may be not fluent in English or unfamiliar with visa processes. Displacement from Afghanistan is also submitted as a cause of inconsistent or incomplete records.
12. Changes in family members, such as the omission of a son by the applicant, were declared by the review applicant's representative to be unintentional and the result of logistical challenges rather than an attempt to mislead.
13. In regard to inaccuracies and omissions in previous visa applications of the applicants, the review applicant's representative submits that these were not deliberate, but rather were the result of the Hashimi family being unfamiliar with English and the complexities of the Australian visa system. A reliance on third parties was blamed for any inaccuracies.
14. In conclusion, the review applicant's representative submits that any alleged discrepancies regarding identity, family composition and previous applications are "minor, unintentional and fully explainable within the cultural, linguistic, and historical context of Afghanistan. The claim is that there is no evidence of deliberate falsification, and the applicants meet the requirements of PIC 4020.
15. The Tribunal has considered the review applicant's representative detailed responses as well as the supportive information provided by the Afghan Community Support Association of NSW. Articles concerning the challenges Afghans face in establishing their identity due to fraud, corruption and the widespread lack of documentation due to war were also provided to the Tribunal and the Department and have been taken into account.
16. The Tribunal, having considered all the evidence before it, has concluded the applicant has provided information that is false or misleading in a material particular as part of the visa application. The Tribunal considers the various explanations that have been made to explain what it considers are considerable and significant discrepancies do not in any way satisfy it that these contradictions are the result simply of inadvertent spelling and translation errors, unqualified people helping in the preparation of applications, or identity theft.
17. The Tribunal considers the applicant, who claims the name Said Asgher HASHIMI in this application, has clearly provided false or misleading information in a material particular in this application in relation to other names he has been known by. The applicant on multiple occasions with his Remaining Relative visa application has selected NO when asked if he has been known by other names, aliases or pseudonyms. This clear and unequivocal statement has been made between 2011 and on multiple occasions in 2022. This is in total contradiction to 4 separate Global Special Humanitarian (subclass 202) visa applications the applicant made between 2003 and 2004 claiming the name Sayeed Asgher Mirzad and the DOB: 2 October 1970, and 3 separate Global Special Humanitarian (subclass 202) visa applications the applicant made between 2005 and 2006 claiming the name Mir Najibullah Hashemi and the DOB: 2 October 1970.
18. The Tribunal is satisfied that the applicant has also been known in previous visa applications as Sayeed Asgher Mirzad and Mir Najibullah Hashemi between 2003 and 2006. The Tribunal accepts the veracity of Departmental checks that the applicant also lodged 7 separate visa applications under these names between 2003 and 2006. The Tribunal notes the review applicant and the review applicant's representative have made no claim that any of these 7 specific applications using two separate names were fraudulent and made by other parties utilising the applicant's identity. There are no claims these specific applications and the names provided in these specific applications contained incorrect identity information as a result of relying on third parties carrying out administrative duties and supplying incorrect information. There is no evidence or claim to suggest the applicant contacted the Department to report either the inadvertent submission of incorrect identity information, or the fraudulent use of his own information. The Tribunal considers the review applicant's representative has attempted to obfuscate this issue through the making of generalisations pertaining to some of the identity issues facing visa applicants in Afghanistan. Whilst the Tribunal concedes identity fraud and theft are issues in Afghanistan, it does not accept the general statements pertaining to the challenges of fraudulent documentation and identity fraud in Afghanistan that have been made by the review applicant's representative as adequately explains these glaring contradictions in the applicant's own case. The Tribunal is satisfied that these 7 applications for Global Special Humanitarian (subclass 202) visas between 2003 and 2006 made using two separate identities were made by the applicant. The Tribunal noted at its hearing the evidence that the applicant, using the identity Sayeed Asgher Mirzad, was in fact interviewed by the Australian High Commission in Islamabad in June 2004. The Tribunal finds that the applicant lodged the 7 previous visa applications using the names Sayeed Asgher Mirzad and Mir Najibullah Hashemi between 2003 and 2006.
19. The Tribunal furthermore does not consider the three different names that have been used across the applicant's visa applications are the result of variations in the spelling of Afghan names, errors in the individuals assisting the applicant prepare the applications, or identity fraud. There is no evidence or claim the applicants have ever attempted to inform the Department that the previous information submitted was incorrect. The Tribunal would furthermore note that applicants remain responsible for applications that are lodged in their name.
20. The Tribunal would also note that even if there had been errors in matters such as the names listed in any of the applicant's 7 refused applications for Global Special Humanitarian (subclass 202) visas, he has still failed to acknowledge in his Remaining Relative visa application Form 80s completed between 2011 and 2022 that he had been refused a visa to another country.
21. The Tribunal considers the applicant has provided, by denying on multiple occasions in this application that he has ever lodged applications using other names and identities, has provided false or misleading information in relation to what names he has previously been known by. The Tribunal is satisfied that the applicant has subsequently provided information that is false or misleading in a material particular in relation to this application. The Tribunal is satisfied this information was false or misleading at the time it was given. The Tribunal considers the multiple Form 80s the applicant provided this false or misleading information were critical to any assessment as to the applicant's genuine identity. The delegate quite frankly requires the correct information of an applicant's true identity to make an assessment of matters such as the character requirements for the grant of the Remaining Relative visa.
22. The evidence before the Tribunal also clearly confirms the applicant has provided false or misleading information in relation to his previous visa refusals. In four Form 80s between 2011 and 2022 the applicant on each occasion claimed he had not ever been refused a visa to any country. The reality is the applicant has 7 refused visa applications between 2003 and 2006. Given the applicant has happened provided this incorrect information on 4 separate occasions across 11 years, the Tribunal does not accept this is an inadvertent error and the result of an administrative failure or visa fraud or a third party preparing forms as the review applicant's representative has asserted at the Tribunal's hearing. The Tribunal rather considers the evidence suggests rather this was a systemic attempt by the applicant to deceive the Department on multiple occasions. The Tribunal considers information pertaining to previous visa refusals is directly relevant again to the delegate's consideration and assessment of the applicant's character which is material to any assessment of this visa. It also suggests attempts to obfuscate in relation to the applicant's genuine identity. The Tribunal finds the failure by the applicant to provide any information about his 7 previous visa refusals using multiple identities was false and misleading information in a material particular.
23. Family composition is another area the Tribunal has concluded the applicant has provided false and misleading information in a material particular. The Tribunal has taken into account the review applicant's representative's explanation as to why one of the applicant's purported children listed in previous visa applications was removed in this particular application. Even if the Tribunal were to accept this explanation, it does not adequately explain the considerable other inconsistent family information.
24. This includes the issue as to why 3 of his claimed siblings the applicant has declared in this application failed to name him as a sibling in their own earlier successful visa applications. The Tribunal does not accept third-party intermediaries or transliteration issues explain such a glaring contradiction.
25. There is no specific adequate explanation before the Tribunal as to why the applicant submitted different names for his parents in his Global Special Humanitarian visa applications between 2003 and 2004 when he claimed his name was Sayeed Ashger Mirzad. Given this occurred on 4 different occasions, the Tribunal does not accept the review applicant's representative's response that these discrepancies are the result of transliteration variations in Dari names. The Tribunal considers the far more likely explanation is that this was an attempt to deceive the Department.
26. The Tribunal raised with the review applicant's representative other family composition issues as originally raised by the delegate at its hearing. These include the fact the sponsor and review applicant in this application was previously listed as his grandmother in a number of his earlier Global Special Humanitarian (subclass 202) visa applications; and information sourced from the Kabul Population Registration Office (as outlined in the delegate's decision record) that his father had listed children (who would be the applicant's siblings) that was contradictory to what the applicant had claimed in his own applications. The Tribunal would also note the applicant's claim in an earlier Global Special Humanitarian (subclass 202) visa application (the Tribunal is satisfied that Sayeed Najebullah Hashimi and the applicant are the same person) that he was the last family member of the review applicant living outside Australia is a vastly different and contradictory claim to those that he makes in this application.
27. No satisfactory explanation has been provided by the review applicant and her representative as to this inconsistent and contradictory information. The Tribunal finds the applicant has provided vastly contradictory and inconsistent evidence concerning his family composition to the Department. The review applicant's representative has submitted that these discrepancies "arose from cultural, linguistic, and administrative factors in Afghanistan", and blames issues such as challenges with Dari names transliteration' third-parties assisting with applications; instability in Afghan society; and calendar variations. Whilst the Tribunal accepts that all these matters can potentially have an impact on the preparation of visa applications, the Tribunal is not satisfied on the circumstances of this case that this explains the varying and contradictory claims that have been made pertaining to the applicant's family composition. The Tribunal does not accept these errors have been made due to administrative error or displacement. The Tribunal considers the applicant has provided deliberately false and misleading information for migration purposes on multiple occasions. The Tribunal, noting identity again is central to any assessment of the applicant's character, is satisfied the applicant has provided false and misleading information in a material particular. The Tribunal furthermore considers the evidence was false and misleading at the time it was given.
28. The Tribunal is also not satisfied with the explanations provided for the provision of contradictory information as to the applicant's residence in his Remaining Resident visa application currently before the Tribunal to the information provided in 7 earlier visa applications where, rather than being based in Afghanistan as he claims in this application, he previously claimed he also spent significant periods in Pakistan and Iran.
29. The sheer volume of information, on fundamental aspects of identity, before the Tribunal is of deep concern. The applicant has provided a range of information concerning his name and identity, previous visa refusals, his family composition and his previous addresses that the Tribunal has concluded is false and misleading in a material particular, namely his genuine identity. The Tribunal is satisfied this information was provided deliberately and was false and misleading at the time it was given.
30. The issue of the applicant's address was explored by the Tribunal, particularly given the provision of addresses only in Afghanistan in the current application (with the exception of one Form 1399 of a brief visit to Pakistan between October 2008 and January 2009). The Tribunal noted that the applicant had previously claimed in earlier applications to have resided for significant periods in Tehran, Iran and Pakistan. The review applicant's representative suggested people forget and were sometimes confused about crossing the border, and crossing the Pakistan/Afghanistan border occurred during war when people were displaced. The Tribunal is not satisfied that this is an adequate explanation for what is a significant inconsistency as to the applicant and his family's address history they now claim in their Remaining Resident visa application.
31. The Tribunal has taken into account the detailed explanations of the review applicant's representative both oral and written, supporting community correspondence, as well as submissions previously made to the delegate. The review applicant's representative asserts that any omissions or inaccuracies were not deliberate and "are minor, unintentional, and fully explainable within the cultural, linguistic and historical context of Afghanistan." The Tribunal accepts that matters such as identity theft, cultural practices and transliteration variations can cause concerns and challenges in visa applications. In this particular case however, the Tribunal is not satisfied that these are an adequate explanation. The Tribunal does not accept the review applicant's representative's claim that "There is no evidence of deliberate falsification". Rather, the Tribunal considers the applicant has deliberately been evasive in his Remaining Relative visa application concerning his identity and migration history, and he has provided false and misleading evidence in a material particular.
32. The Tribunal does not accept the multiple examples of false and misleading information in a material particular that have been provided by the applicant can be explained, in this particular review, by matters such as identity theft, date conversion errors, transliteration variations or the claimed "complexities of the visa system". The Tribunal instead considers there has been a deliberate and ongoing attempt to deceive the Department over many years, and the Remaining Relative visa application of the applicant demonstrates a desire to obfuscate as well as hide from the delegate the various identities, family composition, and past visa unsuccessful applications the applicant has previously submitted.
33. The review applicant's representative has focused on documentation problems in Afghanistan and pointed out research from Ali Reza Yunespour from 2021 who discussed barriers to accurate and consistent identity documentation. The Tribunal would note that the identity issues - such as the lodgement of past visa applications using different names and then failing to disclose those rejected applications - have with respect little to do with documentation problems. The failure of other purported family members to name the applicant in their own earlier visa applications (for instance as a brother in the successful applications of claimed siblings) are not the result of fraud, corruption or documentation issues. His father's listing to the Kabul Population Registration Office in 2012 of his own children - who would be the applicant's siblings - which was inconsistent to the applicant's own claimed siblings in his visa applications - is not the result of fraud or identity theft. In the review applicant's representative submissions post-hearing he states, "There is no evidence of false or misleading information, nor any failure to disclose relevant details". The evidence would demonstrate that that is simply not the case. The ongoing denial and obfuscation of the review applicant through her representative demonstrates, in the Tribunal's opinion, an unwillingness of the parties to take genuine responsibility for their past actions.
34. The review applicant's representative in some detail suggested third parties were likely to blame for the provision of inconsistent information in the visa applications. He stated that various people fill out applications in Afghanistan and they will sometimes answer questions for an applicant rather than seek the correct information. When discussing the applicant's spouse and her information, the review applicant's representative suggested that the person that filled out her forms may have added another name for themselves. He suggested the applicants trust people and don't read what the forms they sign. Given the extent as to the inconsistencies over multiple visa applications and multiple years on what a very basic and fundamental issues of identity, and the failure to ever report such behaviour to the Department, the Tribunal is not satisfied with this explanation.
35. The Tribunal is satisfied the information submitted by the applicant as outlined in the decision record on matters such as the applicant's identity, his past visa refusals, his family composition and his past addresses was false and misleading at the time it was given. The Tribunal furthermore finds the information was relevant to a material particular in the Department's assessment of the application - that is the applicant's genuine identity, and the Department's character assessment for the grant of a Remaining Relative visa.
36. Therefore, the applicant does not meet PIC 4020(1).

Has a visa previously been refused on the basis of a failure to satisfy PIC 4020(1)?

1. PIC 4020(2) requires the Tribunal to be satisfied that the applicant and each member of the family unit have not been refused a visa because of a failure to satisfy PIC 4020(1) in the period commencing 3 years before the application was made and ending when the visa is granted or refused. This requirement does not apply to a person who was under 18 at the time the application for the refused visa was made: PIC 4020(2AA).
2. There is no evidence or claim before the Tribunal that the applicant and each member of his family unit have been refused a refused a visa because of a failure to satisfy PIC 4020(1) in the period commencing 3 years before the application was made and ending when the visa is granted
3. Therefore, PIC 4020(2) is met.

Should the requirements of PIC 4020(1) or (2) be waived?

1. The requirements of PIC 4020(1) and (2) may be waived where there are compelling circumstances that affect the interests of Australia, or where there are compassionate or compelling circumstances that affect the interests of an Australian citizen, an Australian permanent resident, or an eligible New Zealand citizen (as defined in reg 1.03), that justify the granting of the visa. The decision-maker must first be satisfied that there are such circumstances, then must consider whether to exercise the discretion to waive the requirements, having regard to those circumstances: Kaur v MIBP [2017] FCAFC 184.
2. The expressions 'compelling circumstances' and 'compassionate or compelling circumstances' are not defined for these purposes. To be compelling, the circumstances must force or drive the decision-maker irresistibly to be satisfied: see Plaintiff M64/2015 v MIBP [2015] HCA 50. The ordinary meaning of 'compassionate' relates to feelings of sympathy, sorrow, pity or concern for others.
3. The Tribunal has considered the extensive submissions made as to the waiver of PIC 4020(1).
4. In relation to the compelling circumstances that affect the interests of Australia, the review applicant submits that the applicant's children possess qualifications and experience that aligns with Australia's skills shortages in the areas of construction, health care and childcare. Two sons (who are both secondary applicants) work in the construction industry as a plumber and bricklayer respectively. Two daughters are listed as holding qualifications and working in the healthcare and childcare sectors. The claim made is that they would help address labour market shortages in these areas, support economic growth and enhance the well-being of the Australian community through improved healthcare and education.
5. It is furthermore submitted that the applicant himself, an experienced plumber and his wife, a qualified nurse and secondary applicant, will make similar contributions to Australia.
6. The Tribunal accepts that there are some demonstrated current labour market shortages in these areas, but it nevertheless does not accept that the employment potential of the applicant and his immediate family are compelling circumstances that affect the interests of Australia. The Tribunal does not accept that the refusal of the applicants' visas, and the loss of their claimed occupational skills, will affect the interests of Australia. The Tribunal would furthermore note that this the applicants are not applying for a business visa. Should they wish to fill any labour market shortages in Australia then there are opportunities to do so through the Business migration stream.
7. The Tribunal has considered whether there are compassionate or compelling circumstances that affect the interests of an Australian citizen, an Australian permanent resident, or an eligible New Zealand citizen (as defined in reg 1.03), that justify the granting of the visa.
8. The review applicant has submitted through her representative her own personal circumstances as an Australian citizen that justify the grant of the visa. It is submitted that the review applicant is 92 years of age and suffering from dementia with significant cognitive decline. It is submitted that she has difficulty performing basic daily tasks and requires increasing levels of supervision, stability and compassionate care. The review applicant submits that she has no close relatives in Australia other than her children already settled in Australia. She states she needs the visa applicant and his family (the secondary applicants) in Australia to provide "essential direct care, emotional support, and assistance with daily activities". It is submitted that paid carers or community services alone cannot meet the complex needs associated with Alzheimer's.
9. The Tribunal accepts the review applicant is 92 years of age, an Australian citizen, and has significant health needs including dementia. The Tribunal notes that whilst there may be compassionate or compelling circumstances that are affecting her interests as an Australian citizen, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the specific circumstances in this case warrant the Tribunal exercising its discretion to waive the requirement.
10. The Tribunal would note that it is not satisfied in relation to the applicant's claimed identity. He has claimed multiple names and his family composition and claims on fundamental issues pertaining to his identity have shifted across multiple visa applications which he ultimately failed to disclose in this Remaining Relative visa application. He was not listed as a sibling of some of his purported siblings in their own successful visa applications. Given this, the Tribunal is not satisfied with the veracity of the applicant's claimed identity and retains significant doubts as to his claimed biological parent-child relationship with the review applicant.
11. The Tribunal notes the review applicant's claims that her age, health and dependence on family support are all compassionate or compelling reasons that justify the grant of the visa.
12. The Tribunal accepts that at 92 years of age the review applicant has some specific health issues and needs where she would clearly benefit from assistance as she has claimed. The Tribunal nevertheless considers this assistance and support can be obtained through a range of other sources beyond the applicant. In relation to her health needs, as an Australian citizen the review applicant enjoys access to universal public health access like any other Australian. She may be able to access government support through the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS) or in-home care and support through a Home Care Support package. There are a range of charitable and community organisations also providing support. The Tribunal furthermore notes the evidence supplied that the review applicant's daughter in fact resides with her and provides support to the review applicant. The Tribunal does not accept that the review applicant will be unsupported without the applicant being granted a visa.
13. In relation to family support, the review applicant has submitted that she in fact lives with her daughter in Yennora and who attended the Tribunal's hearing. The review applicant has a son living in Kingswood as well as another son, daughter-in-law, and several grandsons living in Northmead. The Tribunal is satisfied that the review applicant has access to family care and emotional support and assistance from immediate family already living in Australia, including her daughter she lives with. The Tribunal has considered the review applicant's family circumstances in Australia. On the evidence before it, it does not consider any potential isolation of the review applicant from family is a compelling or compassionate circumstance for the Tribunal to waive the PIC 4020(1) requirements.
14. The review applicant submits that the importance of family unity is a compelling reason for the grant of the visa by the Tribunal. Submissions were made that the advanced age and health vulnerabilities of the review applicant justified the grant of the visa. Under the guise of humanitarian and compassionate grounds, the review applicant submitted that Article 23 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) supported the waiver. The Tribunal rejects these claims. The review applicant's immediate family are already in Australia, with the review applicant residing with her daughter. Her other children are also in Sydney. Given the Tribunal is not satisfied as to the identity of the applicant, the Tribunal does not accept the review applicant is being separated from her immediate family. The review applicant also raised a number of AAT cases as supporting her assertions. The Tribunal notes it is not bound by earlier Tribunal decisions.
15. The review applicant has also asserted that there is a public interest in family unity, with the claim made the review applicant will be able to rely on the applicant and his family to provide her with care and support, reducing reliance on Australia's aged-care system and public health system. The claim is public interest is best served when an elderly or vulnerable Australian citizen us supported by their immediate family. The Tribunal is not satisfied that this generalisation is a compelling or compassionate reason that justifies the granting of the visa. The Tribunal would note that the review applicant is already receiving care and support from her daughter who resides with her. The review applicant has other children in Sydney who can potentially provide support. The Tribunal would note that in some cases adequate care and support can best be provided through Australia's aged care system. The Tribunal would furthermore note the review applicant's representative has also claimed that the applicants will be contributing to Australia through their employment in labour markets with skills shortages rather than providing home-based support to the review applicant. The Tribunal would furthermore again record its lack of satisfaction as to the applicant's purported identity. Given all these matters, the Tribunal is not satisfied that these are compassionate or compelling circumstances that justifies the grant of the visa.
16. The review applicant submits that the separation of the review applicant from the applicants is a humanitarian and compassionate ground for the grant of the visa, with the separation having caused emotional hardship and distress to the review applicant, particularly given her health issues. The Tribunal has taken into account the impact the refusal of the visa has upon the review applicant, an Australian citizen. Given the Tribunal is not satisfied as to the identity of the applicant, the Tribunal subsequently does not consider any compassionate or compelling circumstances that affect the interests of the review applicant on this issue justifies the grant of the visa. The review applicant has also raised past Tribunal cases where compelling or compassionate circumstances were found to have arisen that justified the grant of the visa where the sponsor was separated from their only remaining family members overseas. In this situation the review applicant is not separated from her immediate family members that live in Sydney. The Tribunal is not satisfied as to the identity of the applicant.
17. The Tribunal has considered the evidence before it. Whilst it has sympathy for the review applicant as an elderly Australian citizen with some significant health issues, the Tribunal is not satisfied that she (along with her representative) has demonstrated compassionate or compelling circumstances that justify the granting of the visa. The Tribunal notes that the review applicant is residing with her daughter who is providing her with care and support. She has other children residing in Sydney. As an Australian citizen she has access to a wide range of government provided universal healthcare. The review applicant may have a strong desire for the applicants to come to Australia, this desire does not however in the circumstances of this case represent, in the Tribunal's view, compassionate or compelling circumstances that justify the granting of the visa. The Tribunal again notes its concerns as to the identity of the applicant noting the previous claims that have been made across multiple visa applications.
18. Therefore, the requirements of PIC 4020 (1) should not be waived.

Has the applicant satisfied the identity requirements?

1. PIC 4020(2A) requires an applicant satisfy the Tribunal as to his or her identity.
2. The issues pertaining to the applicant's identity are in most cases the same as discussed in the Tribunal's commentary above concerning his failure to meet the requirements of PIC 4020(1).
3. There are identity issues pertaining to the applicant in regard to the applicant's name and date of birth; his family composition; the identity of his parents; information pertaining to his claimed siblings; as well as his address history. Information the applicant has provided the Department about such matters was inconsistent, as outlined in the delegate's decision record, with information held in Departmental systems and sourced via Departmental integrity checking. This information was also inconsistent with material the first-named applicant had provided in relation to 7 previous visa applications as well as information that had previously been provided to the Department by individuals that the first-named applicant claimed were his siblings, and information his claimed father had provided to the Afghan authorities in 2012.
4. The Tribunal notes the delegate found, on the basis of Departmental integrity and systems checks, that the applicant had applied for visas previously with different names (Sayeed Asgher Mirzad and Mir Najibullah Hashemi) and different dates of birth (2 October 1970 and 1 August 1974) in comparison to his current name and application (Said Ashger Hashimi, DOB 15 March 1962).
5. The delegate's decision outlines the claims the applicant has previously made as to his identity. In summary the evidence was as follows:
   • In the application form (Form 47OF) signed by the applicant on 24 February 2011 he declared his name to be Said Asgher HASHIMI and his date of birth to be 15 March 1962. The applicant also recorded only a dash in the box at Question 13, which asked if he was or has been known by any other names.
   • On 24 April 2011, the applicant provided a Form 80 - Personal particulars for character assessment signed by the applicant on 24 March 2011. At Question 3 the applicant did not declare that he was or had previously been known by any other names.
   • In a Form 80 signed by the applicant on 10 July 2014, Question 5 asked if he had been known by any other name(s) including name at birth, alias or pseudonym, name before or after marriage, cultural or tribal name or clan/subclan name, preferred name or other spellings of names. The applicant ticked the box for 'No' at his question.
   • On 21 June 2022, the applicant provided a Form 80 signed by himself on 24 May 2022. Question 4 asked if the applicant had been known by any other name(s) including name at birth, alias or pseudonym, name before or after marriage, cultural or tribal name or clan/subclan name, preferred name or other spellings of names. The applicant ticked the box for 'No' at his question.
   • On 13 July 2022, the applicant provided a Form 80 signed by himself on 5 July 2022. The applicant again ticked the box for 'No' at Question 4 where he was asked to declare any other names he had been known by.
6. On the basis of information held in Departmental systems, it was reasonably suspected that the applicant had made the following visa applications using different identities:
   • On 5 November 2003, the applicant lodged an application for a Global Special Humanitarian (subclass 202) visa for Australia using the identity Sayeed Asgher Mirzad DOB: 2 October 1970. That application was refused on 19 December 2003.
   • On 25 February 2004, the applicant lodged an application for a Global Special Humanitarian (subclass 202) visa for Australia using the identity Sayeed Asgher Mirzad DOB: 2 October 1970. That application was refused on 19 December 2003.
   • On 19 March 2004, the applicant lodged an application for a Global Special Humanitarian (subclass 202) visa for Australia using the identity Sayeed Asgher Mirzad DOB: 2 October 1970. That application was refused on 19 March 2004.
   • On 13 April 2004, the applicant lodged an application for a Global Special Humanitarian (subclass 202) visa for Australia using the identity Sayeed Asgher Mirzad DOB: 2 October 1970. That application was refused on 24 November 2004. In that application, the applicant also provided a copy of a marriage certificate in which it was recorded that he was 25 years old in Afghan calendar year 1348 (1973).
   • On 10 August 2005, the applicant lodged an application for a Global Special Humanitarian (subclass 202) visa using the identity Mir Najibullah Hashemi DOB: 1 August 1974. This application was refused on 19 October 2005.
   • On 15 February 2006, the applicant lodged an application for a Global Special Humanitarian (subclass 202) visa using the identity Mir Najibullah Hashemi DOB: 1 August 1974. This application was refused on 16 February 2006.
   • On 3 July 2006, the applicant lodged an application for a Global Special Humanitarian (subclass 202) visa using the identity Mir Najibullah Hashemi DOB: 11 August 1974. This application was refused on 12 July 2006.
7. There is also the issue of suspected false or misleading information provided by the applicant pertaining to previous visa refusals which is relevant to any assessment of identity.
   • On 24 April 2011, the applicant provided a Form 80 - Personal particulars for character assessment signed by himself on 24 March 2011. At Question 35, the applicant was asked if he had ever been denied or refused a visa or entry to another country. He ticked the box for 'No' at this question.
   • In a Form 80 signed by the applicant on 10 July 2014, at Question 40 the applicant was asked if he had ever been refused a visa to any country. The applicant ticked the box for 'No' to this question.
   • On 21 June 2022, the applicant provided a Form 80 - Personal particulars for assessment including character assessment signed by himself on 24 May 2022, Question 39 asked if the applicant had ever been refused a visa to any country. The applicant ticked the box for 'No' in response to this question.
   • On 13 July 2022, the applicant provided another Form 80 signed by himself on 5 July 2022. The applicant ticked the box for 'No' at Question 39 where he was asked if he had ever had a visa refused for any country.
8. In relation to the applicant's family composition, the family composition declared in the applicant's current visa application does not match the composition he declared in 7 earlier visa applications made since 2003.
9. In the various forms supplied to date in this application, the applicant declared his family composition to be as follows:

• Father: Said Hassan (aka Sayed Hassan or Said Hassan Hashimi) DOB: 10 February 1923 (deceased)

• Brother: Jafar Sadat (aka Jafar Sadat Hashimi) DOB: 5 June 1953

• Brother: Sayeed Najebullah (aka Sayeed Najebullah Hashimi) DOB: 10 February 1972

• Son: Said Bilal Hashimi DOB: 1 October 1991 (aka Said Bilal Hashimi DOB: 2 October 1995)

1. However, in the applicant's application for a Global Special Humanitarian (subclass 202) visa made using the identity Mir Najibullah Hashemi DOB: 1 August 1974 on 10 August 2005, the applicant included a secondary applicant, Sayeed Khalid DOB: 1 May 1993, who he declared to be his son. Sayeed Khalid was also included as a secondary applicant and declared to be his son in the applicant's applications for a Global Special Humanitarian (subclass 202) lodged on 15 February 2006 and 3 July 2006.
2. The applicant did not however declare Sayeed Khalid as one of his children in the visa application currently before the Tribunal.
3. The information pertaining to the applicant's parents and siblings in the current visa application is also inconsistent with the applicant's previous visa applications.
4. In this application, the applicant declared that he had only two brothers and one sister. His brothers are stated to be Jafar Sadat DOB: 5 June 1953 and Sayeed Najebullah DOB: 10 February 1972. His sister is stated to be Zakia Hashimi DOB: 15 June 1971.
5. In the four Global Special Humanitarian (subclass 202) visa applications the applicant lodged using the identity of Sayeed Asgher Mirzad DOB: 2 October 1970 between 2003 and 2004, the applicant declared only one brother, Sayeed Jafar DOB: 11 July 1963.
6. In the three Global Special Humanitarian (subclass 202) visa applications he made using the identity Mir Najibullah Hashemi DOB: 1 August 1974 between 2005 and 2006, the applicant declared that he had the following siblings:

1. The applicant also declared Zakia Hashimi DOB: 15 June 1970 and Sayeed Najibullah Hashimi DOB: 10 February 1972 to be his aunt and uncle respectively.
2. The Tribunal also notes, as outlined in the delegate's decision record, that Departmental integrity checks with the Kabul Population Registration Office in 2012 found that the applicant's claimed father in this application has the following children, who would be taken to be the applicant's siblings:

• Brother - Sayed Salem - age 12 years in Afghan calendar year 1353 (either 1974 or early 1975 in the Gregorian calendar)

• Brother - Sayed Sikander - age 6 years old in Afghan calendar year 1353

• Sister - Mah Gul - age 17 years old in Afghan calendar year 1353

• Sister - Alia- age 15 years in Afghan calendar year 1353

• Sister - Zakia - age 13 years in Afghan calendar year 1353

1. Further discrepancies appear pertaining to the claims the applicant has made in his current application pertaining to his siblings. The Tribunal noted at its hearing that the Department had reviewed the permanent residency visa applications of the three people the applicant claimed to be his siblings in the current Remaining Relative visa application. None of these people however declared him to be their sibling in their own declarations of their family composition.
2. It was furthermore noted that when Jafar Sadat DOB: 5 June 1953 migrated to Australia, he did not declare the same parents' names that the applicant declared in the current visa application. It was furthermore noted, as outlined in the delegate's decision record, that when Sayeed Najebullah Hashimi DOB: 10 February 1972 migrated to Australia, submissions were made to the Department in his visa application in 2004 that he was "the only and last" family member of Tahira Hashimi DOB: 12 October 1932 (the sponsor and review applicant of the current application) living outside Australia.
3. The Tribunal considers there are significant discrepancies in the information the applicant provided about his siblings in this application and the individual earlier visa applications of the people the applicant claimed were his siblings.
4. The Tribunal also considers there are significant discrepancies in the address information the applicant provided in various Form 80s provided in this application between 2011 and 2022 (where the applicant declared only addresses in Afghanistan) and in his various Global Special Humanitarian (subclass 2020) visa applications between 2004 and 2006 where he declared variously, he had been living in Pakistan and Iran as well as Afghanistan.
5. The Tribunal put this information to the review applicant's representative at its hearing. The review applicant's representative responded orally at the hearing, as well as providing extensive written submissions to the Tribunal.
6. The Tribunal notes that the review applicant's representative's submissions are a joint response to the Tribunal's concerns pertaining to both PIC 4020(2A) and PIC 4020(1).
7. The review applicant's representative has essentially denied either false or misleading information, or bogus documentation, has been provided in either the current application or in previous applications, and claims the applicant's claimed identity in this visa application is genuine.
8. In relation to identity discrepancies pertaining to the applicant's (and family members) names and dates of birth, the review applicant's representative has stated these "discrepancies arouse due to factors beyond the applicants' control".
9. The claim has been made that these discrepancies are "transliteration variations" and are a result of the difficulties in transferring Afghan names written in a Dari script into English. Date discrepancies have been explained as conversion errors, with the transfer of dates from the Islamic Hirji calendar to the Gregorian calendar being held as conversion complexities rather than falsification.
10. Identity theft has also been submitted, with a supporting letter from the Afghan Community Support Association of NSW provided that states identity theft and misuse of personal information are widespread in Pakistan. The review applicant's representative submits "It is possible that some details of the Hashimi family were used without their knowledge in fraudulent applications submitted by others". The claim is the discrepancies may be identity misuse rather than misconduct by the applicant.
11. In relation to the inconsistencies in the evidence before the Tribunal pertaining to family composition, the review applicant has stated that cultural practices, where individuals use different names or nicknames, may be the cause. The review applicant's representative claims that variations in reporting family members are common, and this combined with war and displacement in Afghanistan makes consistent-record keeping challenging.
12. Inconsistencies in family composition in the applications are also blamed on the reliance by the applicant and his family on third parties to assist with the filling out of forms. This assistance is provided by people that may be not fluent in English or unfamiliar with visa processes. Displacement from Afghanistan is also submitted as a cause of inconsistent or incomplete records.
13. Changes in family members, such as the omission of a son by the applicant, were declared by the review applicant's representative to be unintentional and the result of logistical challenges rather than an attempt to mislead.
14. In regard to inaccuracies and omissions in previous visa applications of the applicants, the review applicant's representative submits that these were not deliberate, but rather were the result of the Hashimi family being unfamiliar with English and the complexities of the Australian visa system. A reliance on third parties was blamed for any inaccuracies.
15. In conclusion, the review applicant's representative submits that any alleged discrepancies regarding identity, family composition and previous applications are "minor, unintentional and fully explainable within the cultural, linguistic, and historical context of Afghanistan. The claim is that there is no evidence of deliberate falsification, and the applicants meet the requirements of PIC 4020.
16. The Tribunal has considered the review applicant's representative detailed responses as well as the supportive information provided by the Afghan Community Support Association of NSW. Articles concerning the challenges Afghans face in establishing their identity due to fraud, corruption and the widespread lack of documentation due to war were also provided to the Tribunal and the Department and have been taken into account.
17. The Tribunal, having considered all the evidence before it, is not satisfied as to the applicant's identity. The Tribunal considers the various explanations that have been made to explain what it considers are considerable and significant discrepancies do not in any way satisfy it that these contradictions are the result simply of inadvertent spelling and translation errors, unqualified people helping in the preparation of applications, or identity theft.
18. The Tribunal considers the applicant, who claims the name Said Asgher HASHIMI in this application, has clearly provided false or misleading information in a material particular in this application in relation to other names he has been known by. The Tribunal has grave concerns as a result as to his genuine identity. The applicant on multiple occasions with his Remaining Relative visa application has selected NO when asked if he has been known by other names, aliases or pseudonyms. This clear and unequivocal statement has been made between 2011 and on multiple occasions in 2022. This is in total contradiction to 4 separate Global Special Humanitarian (subclass 202) visa applications the applicant made between 2003 and 2004 claiming the name Sayeed Asgher Mirzad and the DOB: 2 October 1970, and 3 separate Global Special Humanitarian (subclass 202) visa applications the applicant made between 2005 and 2006 claiming the name Mir Najibullah Hashemi and the DOB: 2 October 1970.
19. The Tribunal is satisfied that the applicant has also been known in previous visa applications as Sayeed Asgher Mirzad and Mir Najibullah Hashemi between 2003 and 2006. The Tribunal notes the review applicant and the review applicant's representative have made no claim that any of these 7 specific applications using two separate names were fraudulent and made by other parties utilising the applicant's identity. There are no claims these specific applications and the names provided in these specific applications contained incorrect identity information as a result of relying on third parties carrying out administrative duties and supplying incorrect information. There is no evidence or claim to suggest the applicant contacted the Department to report either the inadvertent submission of incorrect identity information, or the fraudulent use of his own information. The Tribunal considers the review applicant's representative has attempted to obfuscate this issue through the making of generalisations pertaining to some of the identity issues facing visa applicants in Afghanistan. Whilst the Tribunal concedes identity fraud and theft are issues in Afghanistan, it does not accept the general statements pertaining to the challenges of fraudulent documentation and identity fraud in Afghanistan that have been made by the review applicant's representative as adequately explains these glaring contradictions in the applicant's own case. The Tribunal is satisfied that these 7 applications for Global Special Humanitarian (subclass 202) visas between 2003 and 2006 made using two separate identities were made by the applicant. The Tribunal noted at its hearing the evidence that the applicant, using the identity Sayeed Asgher Mirzad, was in fact interviewed by the Australian High Commission in Islamabad in June 2004. The Tribunal finds that the applicant lodged the 7 previous visa applications using the names Sayeed Asgher Mirzad and Mir Najibullah Hashemi between 2003 and 2006.
20. The Tribunal furthermore does not consider the three different names that have been used across the applicant's visa applications are the result of variations in the spelling of Afghan names, errors in the individuals assisting the applicant prepare the applications, or identity fraud. There is no evidence or claim the applicants have ever attempted to inform the Department that the previous information submitted was incorrect. The Tribunal would furthermore note that applicants remain responsible for applications that are lodged in their name.
21. The Tribunal would also note that even if there had been errors in matters such as the names listed in any of the applicant's 7 refused applications for Global Special Humanitarian (subclass 202) visas, he has still failed to acknowledge in his Remaining Relative visa application Form 80s completed between 2011 and 2022 that he had been refused a visa to another country.
22. The Tribunal considers the applicant has provided, by denying on multiple occasions in this application that he has ever lodged applications using other names and identities, has provided false or misleading information in relation to what names he has previously been known by. This is directly pertinent to the question as to his identity. The Tribunal is satisfied this information was false or misleading at the time it was given. The Tribunal considers the multiple Form 80s the applicant provided this false or misleading information were critical to any assessment as to the applicant's genuine identity.
23. The evidence before the Tribunal also clearly confirms the applicant has provided false or misleading information in relation to his previous visa refusals in relation to identity. In four Form 80s between 2011 and 2022 the applicant on each occasion claimed he had not ever been refused a visa to any country. The reality is the applicant has 7 refused visa applications between 2003 and 2006. Given the applicant has happened provided this incorrect information on 4 separate occasions across 11 years, the Tribunal does not accept this is an inadvertent error and the result of an administrative failure or visa fraud or a third party preparing forms as the review applicant's representative has asserted at the Tribunal's hearing. The Tribunal rather considers the evidence suggests rather this was a systemic attempt by the applicant to deceive the Department on multiple occasions. The Tribunal considers information pertaining to previous visa refusals is directly relevant again to the delegate's consideration suggests attempts to obfuscate in relation to the applicant's genuine identity. The Tribunal finds the failure by the applicant to provide any information about his 7 previous visa refusals using multiple identities was false and misleading information in a material particular.
24. Family composition is another area the Tribunal has concluded the applicant has provided false and misleading information that is relevant to his identity. The Tribunal has taken into account the review applicant's representative's explanation as to why one of the applicant's purported children listed in previous visa applications was removed in this particular application. Even if the Tribunal were to accept this explanation, it does not adequately explain the considerable other inconsistent family information.
25. This includes the issue as to why 3 of his claimed siblings the applicant has declared in this application failed to name him as a sibling in their own earlier successful visa applications. The Tribunal does not accept third-party intermediaries or transliteration issues explain such a glaring contradiction. The failure of 3 of his siblings to each name him as a sibling casts considerable doubt on the veracity of the claimed family relationship.
26. There is no specific adequate explanation before the Tribunal as to why the applicant submitted different names for his parents in his Global Special Humanitarian visa applications between 2003 and 2004 when he claimed his name was Sayeed Ashger Mirzad. Given this occurred on 4 different occasions, the Tribunal does not accept the review applicant's representative's response that these discrepancies are the result of transliteration variations in Dari names. The Tribunal considers the far more likely explanation is that this was an attempt to deceive the Department as to his past behaviour and his genuine identity. The review applicant's representative submitted a range of suggestions at the Tribunal's hearing such as the use of religious names, and Afghan people having multiple names. The Tribunal does not consider in the circumstances of this review an plausible or adequate explanation.
27. The Tribunal raised with the review applicant's representative other family composition issues as originally raised by the delegate at its hearing. These include the fact the sponsor and review applicant in this application was previously listed as his grandmother in a number of his earlier Global Special Humanitarian (subclass 202) visa applications**;** and information that his claimed father had other children that were not included by the applicant as his siblings in this or any of his earlier visa applications. The Tribunal would also note the applicant's claim in an earlier Global Special Humanitarian (subclass 202) visa application (the Tribunal is satisfied that Sayeed Najebullah Hashimi and the applicant are the same person) that he was the last family member of the review applicant living outside Australia is a considerably different and contradictory claim to those that he makes in this application.
28. The Tribunal finds the applicant has provided vastly contradictory and inconsistent evidence concerning his family composition to the Department. The review applicant's representative has submitted that these discrepancies "arose from cultural, linguistic, and administrative factors in Afghanistan", and blames issues such as challenges with Dari names transliteration' third-parties assisting with applications; instability in Afghan society; and calendar variations. Whilst the Tribunal accepts that all these matters can potentially have an impact on the preparation of visa applications, the Tribunal is not satisfied on the circumstances of this case that this explains the varying and contradictory claims that have been made pertaining to the applicant's family composition. The Tribunal does not accept these errors have been made due to administrative error or displacement. The Tribunal considers the applicant has provided deliberately false and misleading information for migration purposes. The Tribunal, noting identity again is central to any assessment of the applicant's character, is satisfied the applicant has provided false and misleading information in a material particular. The Tribunal furthermore considers the evidence pertaining to identity was false and misleading at the time it was given.
29. The Tribunal is also not satisfied with the explanations provided for the provision of contradictory information as to the applicant's residence in his Remaining Resident visa application currently before the Tribunal to the information provided in 7 earlier visa applications where, rather than being based in Afghanistan as he claims in this application, he previously claimed he also spent significant periods in Pakistan and Iran.
30. The conflation of a significant volume of information before the Tribunal on a wide range of fundamental information pertaining to the applicant's identity is of deep concern. The applicant has provided a range of information concerning his name and identity, previous visa refusals, his family composition and his previous addresses that the Tribunal has concluded is false and misleading in a material particular, namely his genuine identity. The Tribunal is satisfied this information was provided deliberately and was false and misleading at the time it was given. The Tribunal is not satisfied as to the applicant's claimed identity.
31. The Tribunal has taken into account the detailed explanations of the review applicant's representative both oral and written, supporting community correspondence, as well as submissions previously made to the delegate. The review applicant's representative asserts that any omissions or inaccuracies were not deliberate and "are minor, unintentional, and fully explainable within the cultural, linguistic and historical context of Afghanistan." The Tribunal accepts that matters such as identity theft, cultural practices and transliteration variations can cause concerns and challenges in visa applications. In this particular case however, the Tribunal is not satisfied that these are an adequate explanation. The Tribunal does not accept the review applicant's representative's claim that "There is no evidence of deliberate falsification". Rather, the Tribunal considers the applicant has deliberately been evasive in his Remaining Resident visa application concerning his identity and migration history.
32. The Tribunal does not accept the multiple examples of false and misleading information in a material particular relevant to his identity that have been provided by the applicant can be explained, in this particular review, by matters such as identity theft, date conversion errors, transliteration variations or the claimed "complexities of the visa system". The Tribunal instead considers there has been a deliberate and ongoing attempt to deceive the Department over many years, and the Remaining Relative visa application of the applicant demonstrates a desire to obfuscate as well as hide from the delegate the various identities, family composition, and past visa unsuccessful applications the applicant has previously submitted.
33. The review applicant's representative has focused on documentation problems in Afghanistan and pointed out research from Ali Reza Yunespour from 2021 who discussed barriers to accurate and consistent identity documentation. The Tribunal would note that the identity issues - such as the lodgement of past visa applications using different names and then failing to disclose those rejected applications - have with respect little to do with documentation problems. The listing by the applicant's father in 2012 to the Afghan authorities of his children - the applicant's siblings - which was inconsistent with the claims the applicant himself has made as to his own siblings in his visa applications is not the result of fraud. The failure of other purported family members to name the applicant in their own earlier visa applications are not the result of fraud, corruption or documentation issues. In the review applicant's representative submissions post-hearing he states "There is no evidence of false or misleading information, nor any failure to disclose relevant details". The evidence would demonstrate that that is simply not the case. The ongoing denial and obfuscation of the review applicant through her representative demonstrates, in the Tribunal's opinion, an unwillingness of the parties to take genuine responsibility for their past actions.
34. The Tribunal is satisfied the information submitted by the applicant as outlined in the decision record on matters such as the applicant's identity, his past visa refusals, his family composition and his past addresses was false and misleading at the time it was given. The Tribunal is not satisfied on the basis of the information before it as to the applicant's genuine identity.
35. The Tribunal is not satisfied as to the identity of the applicant.
36. Therefore, the applicant does not meet PIC 4020(2A).
37. The Tribunal has found the applicant does not satisfy either PIC 4020(1) or (2A).
38. On the basis of the above, the applicant does not satisfy PIC 4020 for the purposes of cl 115.223.

1. The application of the secondary visa applicants, Mr Said Mansoor Hashimi, Miss Asma Hashimi, Miss Hosna Hashimi and Mr Said Bilal Hashimi were refused by the delegate on the basis that the applicant's visa had been refused. As the Tribunal has affirmed the delegate's decision and found that the applicant does not meet the relevant criteria for the grant of the visa, the Tribunal affirms the decision to refuse the application of the secondary visa applicants.
2. The secondary visa applicants were refused as they do not meet cl 115.321 as they are not members of the family unit of a person, who having satisfied the primary criteria, is the holder of a Subclass 115 visa.
3. There is no evidence, and no claims before the Tribunal, that the secondary visa applicants meet the primary criteria for the grant of a Other Family (Migrant) (Class BO) visas.

1. Mrs Habiba Hashimi is a secondary applicant who applied for a Other Family (Migrant) (Class BO) visa on the basis she is a member of the family unit of the applicant. The Tribunal accepts Mrs Hashimi is the spouse of the applicant and mother of the other secondary applicants.
2. As the Tribunal has affirmed the delegate's decision and found that the applicant does not meet the relevant criteria for the grant of the visa, the Tribunal affirms the decision to refuse the application of the secondary applicants which includes Mrs Hashimi.
3. Mrs Habiba Hashimi therefore does not meet cl 115.321. There is no evidence, and no claims before the Tribunal, that the Mrs Habiba Hashimi meets the primary criteria for the grant of a Other Family (Migrant) (Class BO) visa.
4. The Tribunal notes nevertheless that the delegate also made a separate decision to refuse Mrs Hashimi's visa on the basis that she too personally did not meet PIC 4020(1) and PIC 4020(2A) principally on the basis of a wide range of her own identity issues. The delegate refused Mrs Habiba Hashimi's visa on the basis at the time of application she did not meet cl 115.323.
5. Given the Tribunal has affirmed the refusal of the first-named applicant's visa by the delegate, and as a secondary applicant the refusal of Mrs Hashimi's visa is also affirmed, the Tribunal is not required to make a specific separate finding as to whether Mrs Hashimi meets the criteria for the grant of the visa.
6. The Tribunal noted Mrs Hashimi's extensive identity issues at its hearing. The review applicant's representative stated at the Tribunal that his submissions for the applicant could also be taken as submissions for any matters pertaining to Mrs Hashimi.
7. As outlined in the delegate's decision, there is a significant amount of evidence from the current and previous visa applications that casts doubt as to Mrs Hashimi's identity.
8. The Tribunal notes from the delegate's decision record:
   • In the application form (Form 47OF) signed on 24 February 2011, Mrs Hashimi declared her name to be Habiba Hashimi and a date of birth (DOB) to be 1 May 1975. Mrs Hashimi also recorded a dash in the box at Question 13, which asked if you are or have been known by any other names.
   • On 24 April 2011, Mrs Hashimi provided a Form 80 - Personal particulars for character assessment signed on 24 March 2011. At Question 3, Mrs Hashimi did not declare that she was or have been known by any other names.
   • In a Form 80 signed by Mrs Hashimi on 10 July 2014, Question 5 asked if she had been known by any other name(s) including name at birth, alias or pseudonym, name before or after marriage, cultural or tribal name or clan/subclan name, preferred name or other spellings of names. Mrs Hashimi ticked the box for 'No' at his question.
   • On 21 June 2022, the applicant provided a Form 80 signed by Mrs Hashimi on 24 May 2022. Question 4 asked if she had been known by any other name(s) including name at birth, alias or pseudonym, name before or after marriage, cultural or tribal name or clan/subclan name, preferred name or other spellings of names. Mrs Hashimi ticked the box for 'No' at his question.
   • On 13 July 2022, the applicant provided a Form 80 signed by Mrs Hashimi on 5 July 2022 where she ticked the box for 'No' at Question 4 where she was asked to declare any other names she had been known by.
9. The delegate furthermore noted as evidence of her claimed identity, Mrs Hashimi provided the following documents in the Remaining Resident application:
   • A copy of an Afghanistan passport issued 31 January 2005 in which her name is recorded as Habiba and her date of birth is stated to be 1973.
   • A copy of a tazkera issued 2010, which recorded her name as Habiba, her father's name as Safar Mohammad, her grandfather's name as Mohammad Hashim and her age as 35 years old in 2010.
   • A copy of an Afghanistan National Identity Card issued on 12 July 2021, in which her identity is recorded as Habiba Hashimi DOB: 1 May 1975
   • A copy of an Afghanistan passport issued 17 April 2023 in which her identity was recorded as Habiba Hashimi DOB: 1 May 1975.
10. The delegate noted on the basis of Departmental integrity checks, it was reasonably suspected that Mrs Hashimi had previously applied for visas for Australia using identities with different names and dates of birth (Habiba Mirzad DOB: 1 September 1975 and Habiba Hashemi DOB: 2 August 1972).

Details of Mrs Hashimi's previous visa applications were listed by the delegate in the decision record as follows:

• On 5 November 2003, Mrs Hashimi lodged an application for a Global Special Humanitarian (subclass 202) visa for Australia using the identity Habiba Mirzad DOB: 1 September 1975. That application was refused on 19 December 2003.
• On 25 February 2004, Mrs Hashimi lodged an application for a Global Special Humanitarian (subclass 202) visa for Australia using the identity Habiba Mirzad DOB: 1 September 1975. That application was refused on 19 December 2003.
• On 19 March 2004, Mrs Hashimi lodged an application for a Global Special Humanitarian (subclass 202) visa for Australia using the identity Habiba Mirzad DOB: 1 September 1975. That application was refused on 19 March 2004.
• On 13 April 2004, Mrs Hashimi lodged an application for a Global Special Humanitarian (subclass 202) visa for Australia using the identity Habiba Mirzad DOB: 1 September 1975. That application was refused on 24 November 2004.
• On 10 August 2005, Mrs Hashimi lodged an application for a Global Special Humanitarian (subclass 202) visa using the identity Habiba Hashemi DOB: 2 August 1972. This application was refused on 19 October 2005.
• On 15 February 2006, Mrs Hashimi lodged an application for a Global Special Humanitarian (subclass 202) visa using the identity Habiba Hashemi DOB: 2 August 1972. This application was refused on 16 February 2006.
• On 3 July 2006, Mrs Hashimi lodged an application for a Global Special Humanitarian (subclass 202) visa using the identity Habiba Hashemi DOB: 2 August 1972. This application was refused on 12 July 2006.

1. The delegate also noted that information Mrs Hashimi had supplied to the Department in the current visa application and earlier applications established significant inconsistencies in claims pertaining to her family composition, including in the claims made in earlier applications (but not the current application) that Sayeed Khalid was her son.
2. The delegate noted further inconsistencies in whom Mrs Hashemi claimed to be her father.
   • In Form 47OF dated 24 February 2011, Mrs Hashemi declared her father to be Safar Mohammad Sardar DOB: 1 May 1942 and her mother to be Najeba DOB: 2 June 1939 (both deceased).
   • In the Form 80 dated 21 March 2011 and 10 July 2014, Mrs Hashemi declared her father to be Safar Mohammad Sardar DOB: 1 May 1942 and her mother to be Nafeesa DOB: 6 June 1945 (both deceased).
   • In the Form 80 dated 5 July 2022 and Form 1399 dated 3 July 2022, Mrs Hashemi declared her father to be Muhammad Safar Rasuli DOB: 16 November 1937 and her mother to be Najiba Rasuli DOB: 4 September 1950 (both deceased).
   • In the four Global Special Humanitarian (subclass 202) visa applications lodged using the identity of Habiba Mirzad DOB: 1 September 1975 between 2003 and 2004, Mrs Hashimi's father was declared to be Ismaeal aka Ismail (deceased) and her mother to be Nadera aka Nadira.
   • To support the application lodged on 13 April 2004, Mrs Hashimi was also interviewed by a Departmental officer on 14 June 2004 at the Australian High Commission in Islamabad. In the interview Mrs Hashimi declared that her father was deceased and her mother, Nadera, was living in Kabul. To support that application, Mrs Hashimi also provided a copy of a marriage certificate in which your father's name was recorded as Mohammad Ismail.
   • In the three Global Special Humanitarian (subclass 202) visa applications made using the identity Habiba Hashemi DOB: 2 August 1972 between 2005 and 2006, Mrs Hashimi's father was declared to be Sayed Hasan (deceased) and her mother to be Mariam (deceased).
3. The delegate noted inconsistencies in regard to Mrs Hashimi's siblings. In the Remaining Resident application, Mrs Hashimi declared that you have only have one brother who is missing presumed deceased. He was declared to be Mohammad Zekria DOB: 1 September 1969 in Form 47OF and the Form 80s dated 21 March 2011 and 10 July 2014.
4. In the Form 80 dated 5 July 2022 and Form 1399 dated 3 July 2022, however Mrs Hashimi you declared her brother to be Zekira Rasuli DOB: 29 May 1977. In the four Global Special Humanitarian (subclass 202) visa applications Mrs Hashimi lodged using the identity of Habiba Mirzad DOB: 1 September 1975 between 2003 and 2004, she declared however that she had a sister, Narges aka Nargis DOB: 4 June 1959. In the interview held at the Australian High Commission in Islamabad on 14 June 2004, Mrs Hashimi in fact stated to a departmental officer that her sister, Narges, was alive and living in Kabul, Afghanistan. In the three Global Special Humanitarian (subclass 202) visa applications however Mrs Hashimi made using the identity Habiba Hashemi DOB: 2 August 1972 between 2005 and 2006, she declared that she had no siblings.
5. The delegate noted Mrs Hashimi's inconsistent claims also included her address history. In the current application, Mrs Hashimi declared her addresses only in Afghanistan. In the four Global Special Humanitarian (subclass 202) visa applications lodged using the identity of Habiba Mirzad DOB: 1 September 1975 between 2003 and 2004, it was declared by Mrs Hashimi that she was residing in Peshawar, Pakistan and she had been living in that country since December 1996. This was reflected in her interview in person by a departmental officer at the Australian High Commission in Islamabad on 14 June 2004 where the officer conducting the interview was advised that Mrs Hashimi and her family had been living in Pakistan since 1996.
6. Other inconsistencies noted by the delegate in relation to Mrs Hashimi's past claims about her address included:
   • In the Global Special Humanitarian (subclass 202) visa application lodged on 10 August 2005 using the identity Habiba Hashemi DOB: 2 August 1972, it was declared that Mrs Hashimi's family resided in Kabul, Afghanistan until January 2004 when she moved to Tehran in Iran.
   • In the Global Special Humanitarian (subclass 202) visa application lodged on 15 February 2006 using the identity Habiba Hashemi DOB: 2 August 1972, the Department was advised Mrs Hashemi and her family resided in Kabul, Afghanistan until January 2004, then lived in Tehran in Iran from January 2004 until October 2005 and were deported by force from Iran to Pakistan since October 2005.
   • In the Global Special Humanitarian (subclass 202) visa application lodged on 3 July 2006 using the identity Habiba Hashemi DOB: 2 August 1972, the Department was advised that Mrs Hashimi and her family resided in Kabul, Afghanistan until January 2004 and lived in Tehran in Iran from January 2004 until October 2005. It was also declared that Mrs Hashimi and her family had been living in Peshawar, Pakistan since October 2005.
7. The review applicant's representative made extensive oral and written submissions in response to these matters, addressing the concerns of the Tribunal and the delegate in relation to the significant identity issues pertaining to the applicant and Mrs Hashimi respectively on a joint basis.
8. The issues and significant inconsistencies pertaining to the identity of Mrs Hashimi - namely her name and date of birth, family composition and address history as appearing in this application in comparison to multiple earlier visa applications - are very similar and essentially identical to those of her spouse, the applicant. For the reasons the Tribunal has previously articulated in relation to the applicant's failure to satisfy it as to his own identity, the Tribunal has the same concerns in relation to Mrs Hashimi individually.
9. Whilst identity fraud has been raised by the review applicant's representative as a challenge in Afghanistan, the Tribunal notes that no specific coherent denials have been made that Mrs Hashimi is not Habiba Mirzad DOB: 1 September 1975 and Habiba Hashemi DOB: 2 August 1972. The review applicant's representative at the Tribunal's hearing suggested that fake applications could have been lodged by (unnamed) people using Mrs Hashimi's personal information in their own application. No evidence has been provided to suggest Mrs Hashimi has ever made such a complaint to the Department over such subterfuge, despite some of these visa applications being made up to 20 or more years ago. The Tribunal is not satisfied that identity fraud is an adequate explanation for the inconsistencies in the information before the Tribunal concerning her identity.
10. The Tribunal notes that the review applicant's representative has claimed that the various names, dates of birth, differing immediate names and addresses that have been provided in various visa applications for both Mrs Hashimi and the applicant can be explained by the use by the applicant and Mrs Hashimi of unnamed third parties who assisted them in the preparation of multiple visa applications. Whilst the Tribunal might accept the parties were at least initially unfamiliar with the Australian visa system, the Tribunal does not accept that these significant and glaring inconsistencies explain such a continued failure to provide the most basic personal information correctly across multiple visa applications. The Tribunal would also note the evidence suggests the subterfuge continued when Mrs Hashimi (using the identity Habiba Mirzad) and the applicant were interviewed by the Australian High Commission in Islamabad in 2004 where claims were made that are entirely inconsistent with those contained in the current visa application.
11. The Tribunal accepts that identity theft is an issue in Afghanistan, and it has taken into account the correspondence of the Afghan Community Support Association of NSW who states a possibility of details of the Hashimi family being used in applications without their knowledge in fraudulent applications lodged by others. In this specific case however, there is no evidence or claim that the 7 earlier Global Special Humanitarian (subclass 2020) visas were lodged by anyone else other than the applicant and Mrs Hashimi. There is no evidence or claim that the parties contacted the Department at any point to report applications made in their name as fraudulent. The Tribunal does not accept identity misuse by third parties (rather than applicant misconduct) is an explanation for the inconsistent evidence and claims made by Mrs Hashimi and the applicant.
12. The Tribunal has again considered the submissions that the various names that have been supplied by Mrs Hashimi and in relation to her parents and siblings could be transliteration variations or cultural practices where different names or nicknames are used. Given the extensive inconsistencies that appear in the current application as opposed to multiple previous visa applications, the Tribunal is not satisfied this is an adequate explanation.
13. In relation to Mrs Hashimi, the Tribunal particularly notes she has made inconsistent claims as to her own siblings whilst she has provided multiple names for her parents across past applications that are inconsistent with what she now claims in the Remaining Relative visa application.
14. The review applicant's representative has provided a range of information including DFAT Country Information about documentation problems in Afghanistan, the absence of a registry, corruption and bribery. The Tribunal does not deny all of those can be issues at the macro level. In the circumstances of this review however, they do not satisfy the Tribunal that they can be attributed to significant, serious and widespread discrepancies as to Mrs Hashimi's (and the first-named primary applicant's as discussed earlier in this decision record) identity.
15. The Tribunal finds the inconsistencies as to the personal information pertaining to Mrs Hashimi is substantial. The Tribunal is not satisfied as to her identity.
16. Given the Tribunal has found Mrs Hashimi has failed to satisfy it in relation to her identity, the Tribunal finds she has failed to satisfy PIC 4020 (2A). Mrs Hashimi therefore fails to meet cl 115.323.
17. As Mrs Hashimi has failed to satisfy PIC 4020 (2A), there is no requirement for the Tribunal to consider PIC 4020 (1) in any further detail or make a further formal finding, suffice it to say the evidence clearly demonstrates that Mrs Hashimi has provided false or misleading information in a material particular in relation to the application for the visa in a similar manner and fashion to that of her spouse, the first-named applicant.

1. The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicants Other Family (Migrant) (Class BO) visas.

Representative for the Applicant: Mr Pashtoonyar Ahmadi

**Migration Regulations 1994

1. (1) There is no evidence before the Minister that the applicant has given, or caused to be given, to the Minister, an officer, the ART during the review of a reviewable migration decision, 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:

(a) the application for the visa; or

(b) a visa that the applicant held in the period of 12 months before the application was made.

(2) The Minister is satisfied that during the period:

(a) starting 3 years before the application was made; and

(b) ending when the Minister makes a decision to grant or refuse to grant the visa;

the applicant and each member of the family unit of the applicant has not been refused a visa because of a failure to satisfy the criteria in subclause (1).

(2AA) However, subclause (2) does not apply to the applicant if, at the time the application for the refused visa was made, the applicant was under 18.

(2A) The applicant satisfies the Minister as to the applicant's identity.

(2B) The Minister is satisfied that during the period:

(a) starting 10 years before the application was made; and

(b) ending when the Minister makes a decision to grant or refuse to grant the visa;

neither the applicant, nor any member of the family unit of the applicant, has been refused a visa because of a failure to satisfy the criteria in subclause (2A).

(2BA) However, subclause (2B) does not apply to the applicant if, at the time the application for the refused visa was made, the applicant was under 18.

(3) To avoid doubt, subclauses (1) and (2) apply whether or not the Minister became aware of the bogus document or information that is false or misleading in a material particular because of information given by the applicant.

(4) The Minister may waive the requirements of any or all of paragraphs (1)(a) or (b) and subclause (2) if satisfied that:

(a) compelling circumstances that affect the interests of Australia; or

(b) compassionate or compelling circumstances that affect the interests of an Australian citizen, an Australian permanent resident or an eligible New Zealand citizen;

information that is false or misleading in a material particular means information that is:

(a) false or misleading at the time it is given; and

(b) relevant to any of the criteria the Minister may consider when making a decision on an application, whether or not the decision is made because of that information.

**Migration Act 1958

s 5 Interpretation**

(1) In this Act, unless contrary intention appears:

bogus document, in relation to a person, means a document that the Minister reasonably suspects is a document that:

(a) purports to have been, but was not, issued in respect of the person; or

(b) is counterfeit or has been altered by a person who does not have authority to do so; or

(c) was obtained because of a false or misleading statement, whether or not made knowingly.