1806812 (Migration) - [2021] AATA 5152

1806812 (Migration) [2021] AATA 5152 (23 November 2021)
DECISION RECORD
DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division
CASE NUMBER: 1806812
MEMBER:Helena Claringbold
DATE:23 November 2021
PLACE OF DECISION: Sydney
DECISION:The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicant a Partner (Migrant) (Class BC) visa

Statement made on 23 November 2021 at 4:08pm

CATCHWORDS
MIGRATION –Partner (Migrant) (Class BC) visa – Subclass 100–  sponsorship for the partner visa application had been withdrawn – family violence claims – applicant has not provided a statutory declaration as required under r.1.25 of the Regulations – a non-judicially determined claim of family violence has not been made – decision under review affirmed
LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958, ss 5, 65, 359, 375, 338
Migration Regulations 1994, rr 1.21, 1.23, 1.24, Schedule 2, cl 100.221
CASES
El Jejieh v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2020] FCA 1103
Sharma v MICMSMA [2020] FCCA 3372
Any references appearing in square brackets indicate that information has been omitted from this decision pursuant to section 378 of the Migration Act 1958 and replaced with generic information.
STATEMENT OF DECISION AND REASONS
APPLICATION FOR REVIEW

On 22 January [2014], the applicant, applied for a Partner (Migrant) (Class BC) visa. The application was based on his spousal relationship with [name deleted], the sponsor.
On 27 February 2018, a delegate of the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection refused to grant the visa. The delegate was not satisfied that the applicant and the sponsor were genuine spousal partners. Therefore, the applicant did not meet cl.100.221 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994 (the Regulations) made under the Migration Act 1958 (the Act). On 14 March 2018, the applicant provided the Tribunal with a copy of the delegate’s Decision Record. This is a review of the delegate’s decision brought by the visa applicant.
The primary criteria must be satisfied by at least one applicant. Other members of the family unit, if any, who are applicants for the visa need satisfy only the secondary criteria. Relevantly to this matter the primary criteria include cl.100.221 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations which requires the applicant to be the spouse or de facto partner of the sponsor, unless the relationship has ceased and certain circumstances exist. These include that the applicant, or a member of the family unit, has suffered family violence committed by the sponsor: cl.100.221(4)(b), (c)(i). The applicant claims this occurred in this case.
On 29 June 2021, the applicant appeared before the Tribunal to give evidence and present arguments. The Tribunal also received oral evidence from Mr [A], a friend of the applicant and the applicant’s authorised recipient. At the Tribunal hearing the Tribunal put information to the applicant under s.359AA of the Act. This information is detailed below.
On 30 June 2021, Mr [A] wrote to the Tribunal on the applicant’s behalf and asked what the applicant needed to provide. On 30 June 2021, the Tribunal wrote to Mr [A] and advised him of the following: information was put to the applicant at the Tribunal hearing and he was provided additional time to respond to the information. In addition, in the hearing the applicant referred to sending the sponsor to a rehabilitation clinic and having documents relating to that. He may wish to provide these to the Tribunal. All information should be with the Tribunal by 5pm on 6 July 2021.
On 30 June 2021, Mr [A] wrote to the Tribunal and stated the following: the only information the applicant received from the Tribunal related to the family violence provisions. He asked whether this is the information the applicant needed to provide.
On 1 July 2021, the Tribunal wrote to the applicant and Mr [A]. They were advised that as noted in the Tribunal’s email of 30 June 2021, the family violence information was sent to the applicant to inform him about the provisions. They were told that as they were previously advised, information was put to the applicant at the Tribunal hearing and the response to that information should be with the Tribunal by 5pm on 6 July 2021. He was also advised that he could call the Tribunal if further clarification was required.
On 1 July 2021, Mr [A] wrote to the Tribunal and stated the following: he is aware that information was put to the applicant at the Tribunal hearing. However, the applicant had been told that the Tribunal would email the information to him. He requested that the information be provided.
On 1 July 2021, Mr [A] telephoned the Tribunal and asked which documents the applicant needed to provide. He stated that the applicant was told in the Tribunal hearing that an email would be sent to him detailing the required information. The Tribunal told Mr [A] that this was incorrect. The information was put to the applicant in the Tribunal hearing and it would not be provided in writing. He was told that the applicant could request a copy of the audio of the Tribunal hearing to assist in his response. At the Tribunal hearing the applicant appeared to fully understand the information put to him. The Tribunal considered the post hearing submission where the applicant responded in detail and specifically to the information put to him at the hearing. The applicant told the second Tribunal hearing that he understood the information put to him and had responded to that information. The Tribunal is satisfied that the applicant understood the information put to him and that he has been given a fair and just opportunity to respond to the information as is evidenced in his detailed submission.
On 1 July 2021, the applicant emailed the Tribunal and requested a copy of the audio of the Tribunal hearing in order to provide his evidence. On 1 July 2021, the audio of the Tribunal hearing was sent to the applicant.
On 15 November 2021, the applicant appeared before the Tribunal (the second Tribunal hearing) to give evidence and present arguments. The Tribunal also received oral evidence from [the] applicant’s aunt and Mr [B] and Mr [C] friends of the applicant.
For the following reasons, the Tribunal has concluded that the decision under review should be affirmed.
BACKGROUND
The applicant was born in [year] in Israel. His parents and sister live in Israel. He did not declare any previous partner relationships. Since 1999, the applicant entered and exited Australia many times as the holder of Tourist visas. On 6 October 2015, the applicant was granted a Partner (Provisional) (Class UF) Subclass 309 visa. On 9 November 2015, he entered Australia as the holder of a Subclass 309 visa. On 27 February 2018, the applicant was refused a Partner (Migrant) (Class BC) visa.
The sponsor was born in [year] in [Country 1]. At the time of application, she declared the following: her father is deceased. Her mother and sister live in Australia and her brother lives in [Country 1]. She did not declare any previous partner relationships. The sponsor entered Australia [in] January 1982 and was granted Australian citizenship.
The applicant and sponsor, the parties, met [in] March 2004 in Sydney. The parties married [in] December 2013. [In] February 2018, the parties became divorced.
CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE
Non-disclosure certificate
The Tribunal told the applicant of the following: a non-disclosure certificate issued under s.375A of the Act is on the Department’s file. This requires the Tribunal to do all things necessary to ensure that the document or information which is the subject of the certificate is not disclosed to any other person. The Tribunal explained the reasons for non-disclosure. It told the applicant that the Tribunal considers the certificate was validly made and invited him to comment on the validity of the certificate.
The Tribunal went on to explain that some of the information the subject of the certificate is detailed in the delegate’s decision record and that in February 2017, the Department received information that the applicant and the sponsor were not living together and had not lived together since the applicant arrived on the Subclass 309 partner visa.
The Tribunal told the applicant that it is satisfied that the information that is the subject of the certificate is relevant to the review because it indicates to the Tribunal that the applicant’s relationship with the sponsor was not genuine.
The Tribunal put the core of other information the subject of the s.375A certificate to the applicant under s.359AA of the Act. The applicant was advised that the information would be the reason or part of the reason for affirming the decision. He was told of the relevance and consequences of the information. He was invited to comment on or respond to the information. The applicant requested and was granted additional time to respond. The information is as follows:
Information on Department [file]
- In March 2017, the Department confirmed that sponsorship for the partner visa application had been withdrawn.
Information on Department [file]
- In September 2017, the Department received information that the applicant had travelled outside of Australia with a view to importing illicit drugs into Australia. This information was later withdrawn.
- In September 2017, the applicant and the sponsor were living separately.
- In September 2017, the visa applicant continued to be sponsored.
- In February 2018, the Department received information that the applicant’s relationship with the sponsor had broken down and ceased and other information related to the applicant possibly claiming family violence perpetrated by the sponsor.
Information on Department [file]
- In November 2016, the Department received an allegation that the applicant was threatening the sponsor and using her to obtain a partner visa. The sponsor had seen the applicant briefly on about 10 occasions since 2013. Since 2013, the applicant had been living and working illegally in Australia. The applicant is likely to be bringing illicit drugs into Australia.
- In February 2017, the Department received information that the applicant’s marriage with the sponsor was for him to obtain a visa to remain in Australia. The marriage is not genuine and based on manipulation and aggression with the sponsor fearing for her safety and being physically and psychologically abused by the applicant. Since November 2015, the sponsor had seen the applicant three times in abusive circumstances. The applicant and the sponsor do not live together. The applicant has threatened to burn down the sponsor’s family home and the sponsor’s family live in fear for their safety.
- In February 2017, the sponsorship for the visa had been withdrawn.
- In March 2017, the applicant blackmailed the sponsor to provide information to the Department to support the parties’ relationship.
- In April 2018, the applicant, for a very long time, had been in a relationship with a person other than the sponsor and having a child with that person.
- In 2018, the applicant and the sponsor lived separately but remained in contact.
- Other information is that the applicant placed spyware in the sponsor’s home.
The Tribunal put the core of other information to the applicant under s.359AA of the Act. The applicant was advised that the information would be the reason or part of the reason for affirming the decision. The relevance and consequence of the information was explained to the applicant. He was invited to comment on or respond to the information. The applicant requested and was granted additional time to respond. The information is as follows:
Information on Department [file].
- In February 2018, the Department received information that the applicant would make false claims about the sponsor in order to obtain the partner visa, including about her psychological health and of her being physically abusive toward the applicant and of her being pregnant. The applicant insinuated the sponsor wanted or received money to provide information to the Department to support the visa application.
- The applicant and the sponsor’s relationship was not genuine. When the applicant obtains permanent residency, he will divorce the sponsor. The applicant bullied the sponsor to assist him in obtaining the partner visa.
In a post hearing submission, the applicant responded to the information put to him in detail and completely. He refuted all of the allegations provided to the Department in every aspect. The applicant told the second Tribunal hearing that he understood the information put to him and had responded to the information.
In the present case the applicant is seeking to establish family violence on the basis of a non-judicially determined claim of family violence.
The decision of El Jejieh v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2020] FCA 1103 interpreted the family violence exception of the Subclass 100 visa (at cl.100.221(4)). It determined that there is no requirement that the relationship referred to at that clause be a genuine spouse or de facto relationship. Justice Wigney found that cl.100.221(4) requires the applicant to establish that he or she entered Australia as the holder of a Subclass 309 visa and continues to hold that visa, not that there was a relationship and that if the applicant held and continues to hold a Subclass 309 visa, then the Tribunal is required to consider whether the applicant has suffered relevant family violence.
In Sharma v MICMSMA [2020] FCCA 3372 the Court noted that it was bound to follow the decision of the Federal Court, which held in El Jejieh v MICMSMA [2020] FCA 1103 that the family violence exception in cl.100.221(4) does not include a requirement that the applicant demonstrate that the relationship with the sponsoring partner was genuine. The visa subclass dealt with in both Sharma and El Jejieh were applications for residential partner visas where the relationship with the sponsoring partner had ceased and was not an application for a provisional partner visa, as is the case in the current matter before the Tribunal.
The Tribunal is bound by the Federal Circuit Court of Australia and the Federal Court of Australia. The Tribunal is not in a position, therefore, to consider the requirements of Regulation 1.15A or s.5F of the Act to determine whether the relationship was ever genuine.
On 2 October 2016, the applicant was granted a Subclass 309 visa and at some point, the relationship had been considered genuine by a delegate of the Minister.
In the present case, the issue that arises on the evidence is whether the applicant has suffered family violence committed by the sponsor, within the meaning of the Regulations.
Under r.1.23 of the Regulations, a person is taken to have suffered or committed family violence if there is evidence tested before a court; or the visa application includes a non-judicially determined claim of family violence, and either the Minister (or the Tribunal on review) is satisfied that the alleged victim has suffered relevant family violence or an opinion of an independent expert has been given that the alleged victim has suffered relevant family violence. Relevant family violence is defined in r.1.21. These Regulations, as relevant to this decision, are extracted in the attachment to this decision. The Tribunal notes that the violence, or part of the violence, must have occurred during the relationship: r.1.23(3), (5), (7), (12), (14).
Has a claim of family violence been made under the Regulations?
Under r.1.23, a visa application is taken to include a non-judicially determined claim of family violence where either a joint undertaking to a court has been made by the alleged victim and alleged perpetrator or evidence in accordance with r.1.24 is provided.
The applicant in this case is seeking to rely on evidence referred to in r.1.24 – namely, a statutory declaration under r.1.25 and evidence of a type and number specified by the Minister for these purposes: IMMI 12/116.
A statutory declaration under r.1.25 must be made by the spouse or partner of the alleged perpetrator. If the alleged victim is the spouse or partner, the statutory declaration must set out the allegation of family violence, name the person alleged to have committed the relevant family violence and if the conduct was not directed at the spouse or partner, name the person to whom it is directed and their relationship with the deponent: r.1.25(2). There are different requirements if the family violence is alleged to have occurred to another person: r.1.25(3).
The first Tribunal hearing
The applicant told the Tribunal of being traumatised during his relationship with the sponsor. However, when the Tribunal asked him whether he was making a claim of family violence, he said he was not. As a result of the applicant’s statements of being traumatised, after the Tribunal hearing on 29 June 2021, the Tribunal sent the applicant information relating to the family violence provisions.
After the Tribunal hearing the applicant provided a submission and the applicant then claimed that he suffered family violence perpetrated by the sponsor.
The second Tribunal hearing
The Tribunal took evidence from the applicant about his family violence claims.
The Tribunal advised the applicant, in detail and at length, the evidentiary requirements he must satisfy to enable his family violence claims to be considered. It briefly adjourned the Tribunal hearing and asked the applicant to read the email sent to him by the Tribunal on 29 June 2021 and the information relating to the family violence provisions and the evidentiary requirements. On recommencement of the Tribunal hearing, the Tribunal discussed with the applicant the necessary evidentiary requirements for him to support his claim of family violence. It explained to the applicant that he had not provided to the Tribunal the relevant information to satisfy the evidentiary requirements.
The applicant told the Tribunal the following: he understood the evidentiary requirements. He does not have the necessary documents and cannot make up evidence he does not have. During his relationship with the sponsor, he did not seek any assistance, or admit that he was abused. He didn’t seek professional assistance and didn’t have a reason to go to a psychologist. His religion does not let him complain about abuse. He loved the sponsor and was strong and wanted to help her. He did not want to do this because the sponsor had a problem and he wanted to help her and had he complained the sponsor would be arrested.
The Tribunal discussed with the applicant a document he provided which is in a language other than English and cannot be read by the Tribunal. The applicant advised that the document related to injuries he suffered from an accident and that this prevented him returning to Australia prior to his visa expiring.
The Tribunal also heard from the witness’s details of the parties’ relationship and aspects of the relationship claiming to be abusive. The Tribunal was unable to contact one listed witness. The applicant told the Tribunal that she is the partner of Mr [B] and would provide the same information as him.
Although the applicant provided a statement relating to his family violence claims, he has not provided a statutory declaration as required under r.1.25 of the Regulations.
The applicant provided a letter dated 20 June 2015 from [a named] clinical [criminologist]. The letter is in a language other than English and is accompanied by a translation of the letter. [The named criminologist] provided a mental evaluation of the sponsor. He gave self-reported information from the sponsor that she acted violently toward the applicant when she experienced a manic attack. He also gave self-reported information from the applicant where he stated that the sponsor could be violent toward him. This letter is not a type of evidence considered acceptable in Schedule 1 to IMMI 12/116.

The applicant provided statutory declarations from:
·     [Applicant’s] cousins.
·    [Applicant’s] uncle.
·    Mr [C], who had known the applicant since 2004.
·    [A named person], who met the applicant in 2016 and declared being [an occupation].
·    [Two named individuals], friends of the applicant.
The applicant also provided letters from:
· [A named organisation].
· [A] friend of the applicant.
There is no evidence that any of the witnesses who provided the statutory declarations or letters meet the Schedule 1 requirement as prescribed under r.1.24 of the Regulations.
Therefore, the evidence provided does not meet the requirements of r.1.24 of the Regulations. As such a non-judicially determined claim of family violence has not been made under r.1.23 of the Regulations.
Other considerations
The applicant provided email exchanges between the sponsor and the previous representative and the representative and the applicant and email and text messages from the sponsor and various photographs. These do not meet the evidence requirements of r.1.24 of the Regulations.
The Tribunal is not satisfied that evidence of family violence has been presented in accordance with r.1.24 and therefore a non-judicially determined claim of family violence has not been made under r.1.23.
Given the above conclusion that the application has not been taken to include a claim of family violence in accordance with r.1.23(9) of the Regulations, the applicant does not meet the requirements of cl.100.221(4)(b) and (c) for the grant of the visa. There is no evidence before the Tribunal that the applicant meets any of the alternative criteria. As the applicant does not meet an essential criterion for the visa, the Tribunal must affirm the decision under review.
DECISION
The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicant a Partner (Migrant) (Class BC) visa.
Helena Claringbold
Member
ATTACHMENT – EXTRACTS FROM THE MIGRATION REGULATIONS 1994
1.21 Interpretation
(1)In this Division:
competent person means:
(a)in relation to family violence committed against an adult:
(i)       a person registered as a medical practitioner under a law of a State or Territory providing for the registration of medical practitioners; or
(ii)      a person registered as a psychologist under a law of a State or Territory providing for the registration of psychologists; or
(iii)     a person who:
(A)is a registered nurse within the meaning of section 3 of the Health Insurance Act 1973; and
(B)is performing the duties of a registered nurse; or
(iv)    a person who:
(A)is a member of the Australian Association of Social Workers or is recognised by that Association as a person who is eligible to be a member of that Association; and
(B)is performing the duties of a social worker; or
(v) a person who is a family consultant under the Family Law Act 1975; or
(vi)    a person holding a position of a kind described in subregulation (2); or
(b)in relation to family violence committed against a child:
(i)       a person referred to in paragraph (a); or
(ii)      an officer of the child welfare or child protection authorities of a State or Territory.
independent expert means a person who:
(a)is suitably qualified to make independent assessments of non-judicially determined claims of family violence; and
(b)is employed by, or contracted to provide services to, an organisation that is specified, in a legislative instrument made by the Minister, for the purpose of making independent assessments of non-judicially determined claims of family violence.
non-judicially determined claim of family violence has the meaning given by subregulations 1.23(8) and (9).
relevant family violence means conduct, whether actual or threatened, towards:
(a)the alleged victim; or
(b)a member of the family unit of the alleged victim; or
(c)a member of the family unit of the alleged perpetrator; or
(d)the property of the alleged victim; or
(e)the property of a member of the family unit of the alleged victim; or
(f)the property of a member of the family unit of the alleged perpetrator;
that causes the alleged victim to reasonably fear for, or to be reasonably apprehensive about, his or her own wellbeing or safety.
statutory declaration means a statutory declaration under the Statutory Declarations Act 1959.
violence includes a threat of violence.
(2)The positions referred to in subparagraph (a)(vi) of the definition of competent person in subregulation (1) are:
(a)manager or coordinator of:
(i)       a women's refuge; or
(ii)      a crisis and counselling service that specialises in family violence; or
(b)a position with:
(i)       decision-making responsibility for:
(A)a women's refuge; or
(B)a crisis and counselling service that specialises in family violence;
that has a collective decision-making structure; and
(ii)      responsibility for matters concerning family violence within the operations of that refuge or crisis and counselling service.
…
1.23     When is a person taken to have suffered or committed family violence?
(1)For these Regulations, this regulation explains when:
(a)a person (the alleged victim) is taken to have suffered family violence; and
(b)another person (the alleged perpetrator) is taken to have committed family violence in relation to the alleged victim.
Note Schedule 2 sets out which visas may be granted on the basis of a person having suffered family violence. The criteria to be satisfied for the visa to be granted set out which persons may be taken to have suffered family violence, and how those persons are related to the spouse or de facto partner of the alleged perpetrator mentioned in this regulation.
Circumstances in which family violence is suffered and committed — injunction under Family Law Act 1975
(2)The alleged victim is taken to have suffered family violence, and the alleged perpetrator is taken to have committed family violence, if, on the application of the alleged victim, a court has granted an injunction under paragraph 114(1)(a), (b) or (c) of the Family Law Act 1975 against the alleged perpetrator.
(3)For subregulation (2), the violence, or part of the violence, that led to the granting of the injunction must have occurred while the married relationship between the alleged perpetrator and the spouse of the alleged perpetrator existed.
Circumstances in which family violence is suffered and committed — court order
(4)The alleged victim is taken to have suffered family violence, and the alleged perpetrator is taken to have committed family violence, if:
(a)a court has made an order under a law of a State or Territory against the alleged perpetrator for the protection of the alleged victim from violence; and
(b)unless the alleged victim had, before 1 January 1998, claimed to Immigration to have suffered domestic violence committed by the alleged perpetrator — that order was made after the court had given the alleged perpetrator an opportunity to be heard, or otherwise to make submissions to the court, in relation to the matter.
(5)For subregulation (4), the violence, or part of the violence, that led to the granting of the order must have occurred while the married relationship or de facto relationship existed between the alleged perpetrator and the spouse or de facto partner of the alleged perpetrator.
Circumstances in which family violence is suffered and committed — conviction
(6)The alleged victim is taken to have suffered family violence, and the alleged perpetrator is taken to have committed family violence, if a court has:
(a)convicted the alleged perpetrator of an offence of violence against the alleged victim; or
(b)recorded a finding of guilt against the alleged perpetrator in respect of an offence of violence against the alleged victim.
(7)For subregulation (6), the violence, or part of the violence, that led to the conviction or recording of a finding of guilt must have occurred while the married relationship or de facto relationship existed between the alleged perpetrator and the spouse or de facto partner of the alleged perpetrator.
Circumstances in which family violence is suffered and committed — non-judicially determined claim of family violence
(8)For these Regulations, an application for a visa is taken to include a non-judicially determined claim of family violence if:
(a)the applicant seeks to satisfy a prescribed criterion that the applicant, or another person mentioned in the criterion, has suffered family violence; and
(b)the alleged victim and the alleged perpetrator have made a joint undertaking to a court in relation to proceedings in which an allegation is before the court that the alleged perpetrator has committed an act of violence against the alleged victim.
(9)For these Regulations, an application for a visa is taken to include a non-judicially determined claim of family violence if:
(a)the applicant seeks to satisfy a prescribed criterion that the applicant, or another person mentioned in the criterion, has suffered family violence; and
(b)the alleged victim is:
(i)       a spouse or de facto partner of the alleged perpetrator; or
(ii)      a dependent child of:
(A)the alleged perpetrator; or
(B)the spouse or de facto partner of the alleged perpetrator; or
(C)both the alleged perpetrator and his or her spouse or de facto partner; or
(iii)     a member of the family unit of a spouse or de facto partner of the alleged perpetrator (being a member of the family unit who has made a combined application for a visa with the spouse or de facto partner); and
(c)the alleged victim or another person on the alleged victim’s behalf has presented evidence in accordance with regulation 1.24 that:
(i)       the alleged victim has suffered relevant family violence; and
(ii)      the alleged perpetrator committed that relevant family violence.
(10)If an application for a visa includes a non-judicially determined claim of family violence:
(a)the Minister must consider whether the alleged victim has suffered relevant family violence; and
(b)if the Minister is satisfied that the alleged victim has suffered the relevant family violence, the Minister must consider the application on that basis; and
(c)if the Minister is not satisfied that the alleged victim has suffered the relevant family violence:
(i)       the Minister must seek the opinion of an independent expert about whether the alleged victim has suffered the relevant family violence; and
(ii)      the Minister must take an independent expert’s opinion on the matter to be correct for the purposes of deciding whether the alleged victim satisfies a prescribed criterion for a visa that requires the applicant for the visa, or another person mentioned in the criterion, to have suffered family violence.
(11)The alleged victim is taken to have suffered family violence, and the alleged perpetrator is taken to have committed family violence, if:
(a)an application for a visa includes a non-judicially determined claim of family violence; and
(b)the Minister is satisfied under paragraph (10)(b) that the alleged victim has suffered relevant family violence.
(12)For subregulation (11), the Minister must be satisfied that the relevant family violence, or part of the relevant family violence, occurred while the married relationship or de facto relationship existed between the alleged perpetrator and the spouse or de facto partner of the alleged perpetrator.
(13)The alleged victim is taken to have suffered family violence, and the alleged perpetrator is taken to have committed family violence, if:
(a)an application for a visa includes a non-judicially determined claim of family violence;          and
(b)the Minister is required by subparagraph (10)(c)(ii) to take as correct an opinion of an independent expert that the alleged victim has suffered relevant family violence.
(14)For subregulation (13), the violence, or part of the violence, that led to the independent expert having the opinion that the alleged victim has suffered relevant family violence must have occurred while the married relationship or de facto relationship existed between the alleged perpetrator and the spouse or de facto partner of the alleged perpetrator.