Back from a hiking break — officially returning to work! Today we’re sharing a fairly complicated case that was granted in the past two weeks.
Applicant’s situation
The client lodged their Subclass 190 application back in 2023, with one or two rounds of further-information requests along the way.
By the time they came to us, the Department had already issued a Section 57 + PIC 4020 notice (see the top image) — meaning the visa could be refused, and if PIC 4020 was triggered, a 3-year bar would apply, blocking most Australian visa applications.
To make matters worse, the applicant was offshore when asked for further information. A family member had fallen ill, so they had left Australia on short notice without applying for a Bridging Visa B — so they had no valid visa to return on.
If the visa were refused while the applicant was offshore, no appeal could be lodged.
So this S57 response was absolutely critical.
The client held a Tasmanian state-nomination invitation, with claims tied to work experience in the original application
They had started out working on a farm as a farm hand, and later moved into an accounting-related role at the same farm.
It was on the strength of that accounting work experience that they received the Tasmanian state nomination and lodged the Subclass 190.
The problem came down to tax records
In the early days, when the accountant lodged their tax return, the occupation was recorded as farm hand. Even after the role changed and they were actually performing accounting duties, the tax filings were never updated to reflect this (see image 2).
When the Department reviewed the case, the tax records still showed the occupation as farm hand. They took the view that the information provided at the state-nomination stage didn’t match, considered it potentially false information, and triggered PIC 4020.
For the client, this was their one and only chance. If the explanation wasn’t clear enough, the visa would be refused outright under PIC 4020, with a three-year bar to follow. On top of that, the employment in question was already two to three years in the past, the client had long since left that role, and the Department had given a very tight response deadline.
Thankfully, both the accountant who handled the tax returns and the previous employer cooperated actively. Our focus was to make it crystal clear to the Department that the client’s actual work was accounting-related, and that the inaccuracy came purely from an oversight between the client and the tax accountant in failing to update the occupation on the tax filings in time.
About a month after our supplementary submission, the Department asked for police clearance certificates — and the visa was granted shortly after (see image 3)!
What’s interesting is that in this case, the applicant’s EOI did NOT claim points for work experience — the work experience was only used at the Tasmanian state-nomination stage. Even so, the Department still went back and reviewed the supporting evidence to confirm that the original nomination invitation had been properly obtained.
A few clear observations:
- The Department’s checks are getting more and more detailed,
- The information they can access is growing,
- Cross-checks and investigations are happening more and more often.
A reminder to everyone!
No matter which visa you’re applying for, all information must be consistent — especially anything work-related.
Any inconsistency can trigger Section 57 and PIC 4020, and a hard-earned nomination can be lost in an instant.
The Department’s expectations around information consistency are genuinely getting stricter, particularly for skilled migration. We’ve also seen overseas work experience come under scrutiny. Everyone, please take this seriously!
