1906182 (Migration)

1906182 (Migration) [2023] AATA 1921 (23 June 2023)
DECISION RECORD
DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division
CASE NUMBER: 1906182
MEMBER:Donna Petrovich
DATE:23 June 2023
PLACE OF DECISION: Melbourne
DECISION:The Tribunal remits the decision to grant the applicant a Partner (Temporary) (Class UK) (Subclass 820) visa

Statement made on 23 June 2023 at 11:02am
CATCHWORDS
MIGRATION – Partner (Temporary) (Class UK) visa – Subclass 820 (Spouse) – relationship ceased and sponsorship withdrawn – judicially-determined claim of family violence – spousal relationship before relationship ceased – validly married – little evidence of financial, household and social aspects of relationship and nature of commitment – allegations by both against the other – intervention order against sponsor but interim order against applicant struck out – child of relationship – little involvement by applicant until recent Federal Circuit and Family Court order for access – best interests of child – applicant’s mental health and treatment – decision under review remitted
LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss 5CB, 5F, 65
Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth), r 1.23(4), (5), Schedule 2, 820.211(2)(a), (8), (9), 820.221(3)(a), (b)(i)(A)
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

This is an application for review of a decision made by a delegate of the Minister for Home Affairs on 26 February 2019 to refuse to grant the applicant a Partner (Temporary) (Class UK) visa under s 65 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (the Act).
The applicant applied for the visa on 16 September 2016 on the basis of his relationship with his sponsor. At that time, Class UK contained Subclass 820. The criteria for the grant of this visa are set out in Part 820 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994 (the Regulations).
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 820.211 and 820.221 which require that at the time of application and decision, 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 820.211(8) or (9) and 820.221(3)(a) and (3)(b)(i). The applicant claims this occurred in this case.
The delegate refused to grant the visa on the basis that the applicant did not meet cl 820.211(2)(a), 820.221 and 801.221(3)(b) of the Regulations. The delegate was not satisfied that at the time of application, prior to the end of their relationship, that the couple were in a genuine spousal relationship due to the provision of insufficient evidence to support the claims. Consequently, the delegate found that 820.211(2)(a) of the Regulations was not met at the time of application.
As couple’s relationship came to an end, the delegate also determined that at the time of decision cl. 820.221 of the Regulations was not met. Finally, the delegate determined that they were not required to consider the claims that the relationship ended in circumstances involving family violence against the applicant as the relationship was determined not to be genuine at the time of application. The delegate did not consider the family violence claims further. Consequently, it was decided by the delegate that cl 820.221(3)(b) of the Regulations was not met by the applicant.
Background
The applicant is a [Age] year old Vietnamese man. The applicant lodged an application for a UK Partner (Temporary) and BS Partner (Residence) visa on 19 September 2016 on the grounds that he was in a spousal relationship with [the sponsor] a [Age] year old Australian citizen of Vietnamese heritage.
The relationship between the applicant and sponsor ceased on 2 April 2018. The Department of Immigration and Border Protection (the Department) was notified that the relationship had ceased by the sponsor (who withdrew sponsorship).
The couple applied for intervention orders against each other.
The sponsor submitted to the Tribunal copies of applications for an intervention order against the applicant to protect both herself and the child from the applicant. These documents are dated 23 November 2017 and record the hearing date at the [Magistrates’ Court] as [February] 2018.
An Interim Intervention Order against the applicant dated [March] 2019 has been supplied to the Tribunal by the applicant.
An Intervention Order against the sponsor by the applicant dated [November] 2017 has been supplied to the Tribunal by him. This Intervention Order was due to expire on [in] November 2018.
A certified extract of a Magistrates Court document dated [September] 2022, evidences that the Family Violence application for an intervention order by the sponsor was struck out.
The applicant claims to be the biological father of a child of the couple’s relationship and was named on the birth certificate. The Department requested that the applicant take a DNA test to determine the child’s paternity. This was not done at the time of the Department request. But the DNA test has subsequently been undertaken by the applicant. The DNA report dated 29 October 2020, which has been submitted to the Tribunal by the applicant, shows that there is a 99.9998% likelihood that he is biological father of the couple’s child.
On 2 April 2018 the couple’s relationship ceased. The sponsor has had little involvement in the child’s life over the past four (4) years and pays no maintenance. But he has successfully applied to the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia, Division 2, for access to his daughter. The court order dated [August] 2022, submitted to the Tribunal, provides the applicant with unsupervised twenty-four (24) hour access to the child, once a fortnight. Although the child’s mother has full custody.
The chronology of the relationship covers their marriage [in] April 2016, the period up to their separation in March 2017, the applicant’s removal from the house on 23 November 2017 as a result of an Intervention Order against him taken out by the sponsor, and the irretrievable state of the relationship.
Their divorce hearing was on 2 November 2018 and the divorce certificate was finalised [in] December 2018. This indicates that their marriage lasted for twelve (12) months. The evidence supports the conclusion that it was a relationship plagued by family violence allegations in the home. The family violence was allegedly instigated by both parties. The intervention by the police and alleged reports to Department of Humans Services in relation to a series of claims by both parties, lends itself to a conclusion by the Tribunal that the family violence involved them both, as well as their child.
There are claims by the applicant of family violence perpetrated by the sponsor resulting in his continued treatment by a psychologist for ongoing mental health issues. The applicant submitted to the Tribunal a psychologist’s report dated 6 May 2018.
The applicant told the Tribunal he now works part time in [Work sector 1] and also as [an Occupation]. He claims he has been unable to work full time as he now suffers from anxiety and depression which impact his ability to work.
The applicant claims that he was hospitalised on two (2) occasions, has suicidal thoughts and was self- harming by cutting himself. He has been diagnosed with Major Traumatic Disorder and anxiety. The applicant claims that on one (1) occasion, after injuring his leg at work, that the sponsor hit him with a dog chain.
The applicant appeared before the Tribunal on 27 April 2023 to give evidence and present arguments. The Tribunal was scheduled to hear oral evidence from [Mr A] (the applicant's friend). But he did not appear before the Tribunal due to work commitments in Adelaide.
The applicant was not represented in relation to the review.
For the following reasons, the Tribunal has concluded that the decision under review should be remitted.
CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE
In the present case, the applicant claims the relationship with the visa sponsor has ceased, and that he has been the victim of family violence.
Financial aspects of the relationship
There is little evidence to suggest that there was a genuine pooling of financial resources by the couple, although the applicant maintains he gave all of his earnings to the sponsor. This was around $1000 per week which he maintains was paid to the sponsor in cash.
The applicant told the Tribunal that he paid the sponsor rent and some utility bills. According to testimony provided by the applicant at the Tribunal hearing, the sponsor owns several houses, that are in the names of her father and brothers as she has a bad credit rating.
Evidence was provided to the Tribunal that the sponsor has a [Subject] qualification, had worked in [Work sector 2], owns several houses with her family, and had a retail [outlet] affected by Covid lockdowns in Melbourne that have since closed.
Based on the applicant’s hearing testimony and his written submissions, the Tribunal finds that although small that there was some pooling of financial resources by the couple. The Tribunal heard that the applicant worked sporadically and was on Workcover for a time because of a work injury. The Tribunal heard from the applicant that his contribution to the household expenses was more aligned with that of a tenant, as he stated that he paid rent and utility bills to the sponsor. Any assets owned by the sponsor remained in the sponsor’s name or in her family’s portfolio.
The Tribunal in considering the evidence places some weight in favour of the applicant.
Nature of the Household
The applicant met the sponsor on 27 February 2016 when he applied for a room to rent in the sponsor’s home (that she rented out as a share house). The applicant told the Tribunal that he and the sponsor were attracted to each other. They started to see each other and after around three (3) months they became romantically involved and were married [in] April 2016. The applicant told the Tribunal that the sponsor owned two (2) [businesses], where he was employed in [Work sector 3]. The applicant told the Tribunal that he had previously worked in [Work sector 1 workplaces], as well as in [Occupation 1 work sector].
The applicant told the Tribunal that the sponsor became very stressed as a result on the downturn of her businesses. The businesses subsequently closed down during Covid lockdown in Melbourne.
The Tribunal also received extensive material raising allegations in relation to the sponsor’s violent and abusive behaviour towards the applicant and the couple’s child, including emotional and financial abuse.
Allegations were raised in supporting material supplied to the Tribunal by the sponsor that the applicant suffers from borderline personality disorder, with long term mental health issues involving self- harm and contriving his own injuries.
There were also allegations made in written submissions to the Tribunal by the sponsor that the relationship was contrived to obtain a visa, including that the applicant had threatened and coerced her into the relationship from its commencement.
Nature of the Persons commitment to each other
The Tribunal in reviewing the evidence on file and at the hearing, remains unsatisfied that the applicant’s evidence is reliable. The sponsor has made written submissions to the Tribunal that their relationship was contrived by the applicant. She claims that she was subjected to pressure by the applicant from very early in their meeting when he applied to rent a room from her in her house. The sponsor’s submissions as to the genuineness of their relationship, has created sufficient doubt over the veracity of the applicant’s evidence.
Submissions by the sponsor include that the applicant initially manipulated her and had been coercive in his demands for a relationship to enable him to remain in Australia. The sponsor made submissions that the applicant has threatened suicide a number of times. She also asserts that he had two (2) previous relationships that both broken down, but that they were also contrived for the purpose of achieving a positive visa outcome so that he could stay in Australia.
The sponsor asserts that he convinced her to marry him, which she did as she did not want him to self- harm or suicide. She claims that the applicant then became so forceful about their relationship, that he inserted himself into her retail business, forced her to have sex with him against her will and became physically abusive. This resulted in the sponsor taking out an intervention order against the applicant.
In conflicting submissions, the applicant told the Tribunal that he had been present for the birth of his biological child and that he had assisted in looking after her when she was a first born.
In contrast the sponsor made submissions to the Tribunal that the applicant had been abusive to both her and their child. She claims that the applicant had not supported the family. Rather he made threats resulting in Child services being called to supervise the family and an intervention order being put in place to protect the child and the sponsor. The applicant has recently had these orders removed and is now able to see his daughter as he has visitation rights every fortnight for 24 - hour visits. The sponsor remains the custodial parent of the child, and the child is not able to be removed from Australia without her consent. The sponsor does not contribute financially to the support of the child.
The applicant told the Tribunal that he had not seen his daughter for four (4) years but is re-establishing a relationship with her now that she is [Age] years old.
The relationship broke down in March 2017 after a period of twelve months amidst claims of family violence and intervention orders taken out by both parties.
The Tribunal in reviewing the evidence finds limited evidence provided to support the claim that the couple’s relationship was genuine. However, there is a child of the relationship. Although there has been little involvement by the applicant with the child previously, due to the dysfunctional nature of the parental relationship, there is now a willingness on his part (the child’s biological father) to re-establish a relationship with the child. The applicant is now engaged in complying with Family Court Orders and has become a regular part of his daughter’s life.
Although the Tribunal has seen little evidence to support any previous family or domestic life together. The couple met and married after a very short period of time, which would appear to be as quickly as possible to enable the applicant to apply for a Partner visa to stay in Australia.
The marriage broke down after twelve (12) months. The sponsor claims she was coerced into the marriage and that it was not genuine. The Tribunal remains un-satisfied that the marriage was not entered into initially by the applicant to gain a visa to remain in Australia permanently. However, they did share a home together. Whilst the relationship was dysfunctional, they have cohabitated and have a child together. On this basis the Tribunal places some weight in favour of the applicant
Social Aspects
The applicant told the Tribunal that he and the sponsor went on road trips and for dinner with the sponsor’s friends. He provided testimony at the Tribunal hearing that he did not have any friends because the sponsor had scared those few friends he did have away.
The Tribunal is not satisfied that there is sufficient evidence to support a finding that the relationship was viewed by others as genuine and ongoing, or that they were considered by friends, family or the community to be a couple. The Tribunal places no weight in favour of the applicant in this regard.
Any other circumstances and family violence:
The Tribunal notes the claim and extensive material provided in relation to family violence perpetrated by the sponsor.
In the present case the applicant is seeking to establish family violence on the basis of a non-judicially determined claim of family violence. Material was supplied to the Tribunal by the applicant in support of his family violence claims including his statutory declaration, a statutory declaration by a ‘competent person’ and a record of assault kept by a State or Territory police service, medical reports and a psychologist’s report.
Further, the provision of the Intervention Order against the sponsor, leads the Tribunal to conclude that the applicant satisfies cl 1.23(4) and cl. 1.23(5) of the Regulations. The family violence claims against the sponsor are established by the provision of the Court Order as required by these particular regulations.
The Tribunal has reviewed the evidence provided by the applicant, as well as submissions provided by the sponsor, regarding the nature of the relationship prior to its end due to family violence committed against the sponsor.
Further, the Tribunal has reviewed the evidence provided by the applicant about their initial meeting when he applied to live in a share house which is owned by the sponsor, how they became involved as a couple after a few months and then married on [in] April 2016.
The Tribunal received information that on 23 November 2017 the police were called to the couple’s home and the applicant was forced to leave the house suddenly due to an interim intervention order obtained by the sponsor against him.
The sponsor was placed under an Intervention order dated13 November 2017 requiring that she not commit family violence against the applicant.
An Interim Intervention Order against the applicant dated 12 March 2019 has been supplied to the Tribunal by the applicant.
The Tribunal heard that a subsequent Intervention Order was placed on the applicant by the sponsor on 23 November 2017 accusing him of inflicting family violence. On the advice of his lawyer, he accepted the Intervention Order on the proviso that his daughter be removed from the final order. This Intervention Order was due to expire in February 2018.
The applicant provided the Tribunal with submissions detailing DNA testing results, which included a Parentage testing Report stating that the applicant is the genetic father of couple’s child. This document is dated 29 October 2020.
The Tribunal also received documents from the [Magistrates court] dated [March] 2019 from the applicant’s former wife and sponsor. This material detailed various incidents including social media threats, allegations of threatened physical assault, and stalking behaviour by an agent of the applicant allegedly acting on his behalf. In separate material there is video footage of the applicant inflicting cruelty on his own dog in their backyard, holding and beating the dog with what appears to be an implement, causing the dog to cry in fear and pain.
A report from the [Hospital] emergency department dated 5 November 2017, outlining the applicant’s injuries sustained in a domestic violence incident resulting in a head injury with loss of consciousness, was submitted by him to the Tribunal.
The applicant also submitted another report from [Hospital] emergency department dated 28 March 2017, outlining injuries including “head injury with loss of consciousness- hit with metal chain by wife at 0100HRS”, concussion, headache, felt dizzy and right ear blocked.
It is alleged that the injuries are a result of an assault by his now ex-wife. The applicant maintains that the sponsor became enraged with him over his inability to work because of a workplace injury, hitting him in the head with a dog chain. This caused him to lose consciousness and to suffer a concussion as well as lacerations.

The applicant provided a substantiating report from his General Practitioner dated 24 November 2017. The report provides a chronology of his illnesses and incidents of alleged Domestic/Family abuse as per below (emphasis added):
·     20 October 2016              Depressed - Family dysfunction
·     20 October 2016              Domestic Violence - Victim
·     28 November 2016          Domestic Violence -Victim
·     2 August 2017                  Domestic Violence -Victim
·     25 August 2017               Depression
The Tribunal has reviewed the written submissions and evidence given by the applicant at the hearing, together with the written material provided by the sponsor (the applicant’s estranged ex -wife). The Tribunal finds that the relationship prior to their separation, was filled with aggressive and dysfunctional behaviour, resulting in both parties being placed on Intervention Orders because of alleged violent behaviour towards each other. The Tribunal is of the view that the couple’s relationship could only be describe as toxic and destructive.
In reviewing the information provided to the Department, including that held on Departmental records, The Tribunal finds limited evidence to support that the couple had a relationship based on mutual obligation, companionship, emotional support and long-term planning, which are typical elements of a committed spousal relationship. However, they were married, lived together for 12 months and had a child together. This supports the conclusion that there was a relationship, that there was some level of communication and sharing of some resources, and a level of care that was of enough significance that they married in an attempt to support the applicant when he was threatening suicide. Also, the applicant attempted to support the sponsor when she was struggling with a failing business during Covid 19 lockdowns in Melbourne.
The Tribunal particularly notes that the applicant and sponsor have a child together. The Family court order in place supports sole parenting of the child by the sponsor. It only recently provided for visitation by the applicant with the child allowing twenty-four (24) hour access visits. Recently this has been changed to much shorter visits of 4 - 5 hours.
The applicant claims that he suffered family violence perpetrated by the sponsor. These claims have been noted by the Tribunal.
The Tribunal finds that the applicant satisfies subclause 820.211(2) of the Regulations, which requires that he was the spouse or de facto spouse of the sponsoring partner at the time of application. The Tribunal has considered all the evidence and information provided in relation to matters prescribed under Regulation 1.15A and 1.09A. It is the finding of the Tribunal that the evidence is sufficient to demonstrate that the applicant was the spouse or de-facto of the sponsor as defined under section 5F and 5CB of the Act, and that cl. 820.211(2)(a) of the Regulations is met at the time of visa application.
As the couple have divorced, an assessment of the application has been made under cl. 820.221(3)(a) and 820.221(3)(b)(i)(A) of the Regulations. It is the finding of the Tribunal, based on the evidence supplied, that family violence has occurred, and that the applicant has ongoing mental health issues as a result of the family violence suffered during his marriage.
The Tribunal accepts the claims of family violence raised by the applicant against the sponsor in view of the material submitted in evidence.
Also, as a result of the Family Court Order in place the applicant now has visitation rights in relation to his daughter. The Tribunal finds that it is in the best interests of the child that the applicant is able to contribute to his daughter’s life in a positive way and provide her with the opportunity to be supported by both her parents.
DECISION
The Tribunal remits the decision to grant the applicant a Partner (Temporary) (Class UK) (Subclass 820) visa
Donna Petrovich
Member

ATTACHMENT – EXTRACTS FROM THE MIGRATION REGULATIONS 1994
1.21 Interpretation
…
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.
…
violence includes a threat of violence.
…
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)[…] 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.

[2023] AATA 1921

23 June 2023

Key Legal Topics

Areas of Law

Immigration

Administrative Law

Legal Concepts

Judicial Review

Procedural Fairness

Natural Justice

Remedies

Statutory Construction