1930048 (Migration) - [2025] ARTA 966

1930048 (Migration) [2025] ARTA 966 (4 June 2025)
DECISION AND
REASONS FOR DECISION
Respondent:Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs
Tribunal Number: 1930048

Tribunal:General Member D. Barker
Place:Sydney
Date: 4 June 2025
Decision:The Tribunal sets aside the decision under review and remits the application for a Partner (Temporary) (Class UK) visa for reconsideration in accordance with the order that the applicant meets the following criteria for a Subclass 820 (Partner) visa:
·cl 820.221(3) of Schedule 2 to the Regulations.

Statement made on 04 June 2025 at 9:58am
CATCHWORDS
MIGRATION – Partner (Temporary) (Class UK) visa – Subclass 820 (Partner) – genuine and continuing relationship – validly married – significant dowry claimed by sponsor’s family – limited evidence of financial, household and social aspects of relationship and nature of commitment – representation as married to relatives, friends and employer – relationship ceased after short time, sponsorship withdrawn and non-judicially determined claim of family violence – abused, struck and threatened by sponsor and/or her father – statutory declaration and reports from specified persons – no contemporary third-party corroborative evidence – date of cessation of relationship – opinion of independent expert properly made and taken as correct – decision under review remitted
LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss 5CB, 5F(2), 65, 375A, 359AA
Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth), rr 1.15A(3), 1.21, 1.23, 1.24, 1.25(2), 1.27, Schedule 820.211(8), (9), 820.221(3)(a), (b)(i)
CASES
He v MIBP [2017] FCAFC 206
MICMSMA v Gupta [2022] FCAFC 51
Any references appearing in square brackets indicate that information has been omitted from this decision pursuant to an order under section 70 of the Administrative Review Tribunal Act 2024 and replaced with generic information.
STATEMENT OF REASONS
APPLICATION FOR REVIEW

This is an application for review of a decision made by a delegate of the Minister to refuse to grant the applicant a Partner (Temporary) (Class UK) visa under s 65 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (the Act).
On 14 October 2024, the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) became the Administrative Review Tribunal (the Tribunal). Under the transitional provisions in the Administrative Review Tribunal (Consequential and Transitional Provisions No. 1) Act 2024 (the Transitional Act), proceedings in the AAT that were not finalised before 14 October 2024 are to be continued and finalised by the Tribunal. Anything done in relation to the proceeding before 14 October 2024 is taken to have been done by the Tribunal.
The applicant applied for the visa on 29 July 2018 on the basis of his relationship with his sponsor. At that time, Class UK contained only one subclass: Subclass 820 (Partner). The criteria for the grant of this visa are set out in Part 820 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth) (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 is 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 experienced family violence committed by the sponsor. The applicant claims this occurred in this case.
The delegate refused to grant the visa on the basis that the visa applicant did not satisfy 820.211 because they were not satisfied the evidence before them demonstrated that the applicant is a spouse or de facto partner of the sponsor, as defined under s 5F and 5CB of the Act. The delegate acknowledged that the applicant claims to be a victim of family violence. The delegate indicated that they had not assessed claims related to this factor as the aforementioned threshold requirement that the applicant be in a spouse or de facto relationship with the sponsor was not met.
The applicant initially appeared before the AAT (differently constituted) on 3 November 2023 to give evidence and present arguments. The AAT Member who presided over the hearing at that time did not and is no longer available to make a decision in relation to the review application and accordingly the review was reconstituted for the purpose of the Tribunal undertaking the requested merits review of the visa refusal decision.
The applicant appeared before the Tribunal (currently constituted) on 19 February 2025 to give evidence and present arguments. Both the previous AAT hearing and the Tribunal hearing was conducted with the assistance of an interpreter in the Arabic (Lebanese) and English languages.
The applicant was represented in relation to the review. The representative attended the Tribunal hearings.
For the following reasons, the Tribunal has concluded that the decision under review is set aside, and the matter be remitted for reconsideration.
BACKGROUND
The applicant is a national of Lebanon and is [Age] years of age.
The sponsor was born in Australia and is of Lebanese descent. She is [Age] years of age.
The applicant has indicated that that he and the sponsor (when referred to collectively, hereafter referred to as ‘the parties’) are distantly related. He claims that they connected with each other online in or around May 2015.[1] The parties met for the first time in-person on 3 November 2015 in Lebanon and that they made a commitment to a shared life together to the exclusion of all others on 20 November 2015.
[1] Applicant Statutory Declaration declared 15 August 2018.
On 31 October 2017, the applicant was granted a Subclass 300 Prospective Marriage visa and then arrived in Australia [in] November 2017. The applicant has claimed that the parties were married in [Suburb 1], NSW [in] April 2018[2], however the Tribunal notes that the marriage certificate issued by NSW Births, Deaths and Marriages indicates that the marriage occurred some weeks earlier [in] March 2018[3]. The [April] 2018 date is also identified as the parties’ marriage date in statutory declarations prepared by [Ms A], [B], [C], [D], [E] and by [Mr F], the wedding photographer. This discrepancy appears explained by information in the report of the independent expert, who states that ‘The couple then signed the official marriage documentation with an Imam [in] March 2018 and held a wedding reception [in] April 2018’.[4] That is the parties married on [Day 1] March 2018, registered the marriage with NSW Births, Deaths and Marriages on [Day 2] March 2018 and subsequently held a wedding celebration [in] April 2018.
[2] Applicant Statutory Declarations declared 15 August 2018 and 4 March 2025.
[3] NSW Births, Deaths and Marriages marriage certificate field with ART on 6 March 2025.
[4] Report of Independent Expert [page 3 of 17]
On 22 October 2018, the sponsor advised the Department that the parties’ relationship had ended on 7 October 2018. At this time, she provided the Department with a different residential address than the [Suburb 2] address where she had resided with the applicant, and she indicated that she withdrew her sponsorship for the applicant’s Partner visa.
On 11 July 2019, the Department sent the applicant a natural justice letter inviting comment on information received regarding a change in his relationship status with the sponsor, namely that the parties’ relationship had ceased and that the sponsorship for his Partner visa application had been withdrawn.
Following this the applicant informed the Department that he was a victim of family violence perpetrated by the sponsor and filed documents including, but not limited to:
·Applicant written statement – undated.
·Rent receipt history for [Suburb 2] property – issued 28 August 2019 covering the period from 28 March 2018 to 3 October 2018.
·Letter dated 30 July 2019 from [Dr G], general practitioner.
·Statutory Declaration form 1410 declared by the applicant on 15 August 2019.
·Applicant written statement dated 15 August 2019.
·Statutory Declaration, completed by [Ms H], registered psychologist dated 3 September 2019.
·Psychologist report from [Ms H], dated 2 September 2019.
In their decision record, a copy of which was provided in association with the review application, the delegate explains that the visa was refused due to a lack of reliable evidence demonstrating that the applicant was in a genuine spousal or de facto relationship with the sponsoring partner. The delegate noted that no evidence had been filed with the Department in relation to the financial or social aspects of the relation; and as well no evidence that the parties were during the claimed duration of the relationship providing emotional support or companionship to each other. As to the nature of the parties’ household relationships, the delegate commented that the evidence provided regarding this relationship aspect, ‘a typed receipt history of rent without any signature in joint names for a limited period from 19 September 2018 to 10 October 2018’[5], was not convincing
[5] DHA delegate decision record dated 14 October 2019.
In association with the review application the applicant provided the AAT and ART with the following documents:
·Further copy of Statutory Declaration form 1410 declared by the applicant on 15 August 2019.
·Further copy of letter dated 30 July 2019 from [Dr G].
·Copy of DHA delegate decision record dated 14 October 2019.
·Representative submissions dated 27 October 2023.
·Receipt (with translation) for videography and photography of parties ‘engagement party on 27 November 2015.
- Receipt (with translation) for jewellery dated 20 November 2015.
- Receipt (with translation) for ‘engagement’ dated 20 November 2015.
·NSW Births, Deaths and Marriages marriage certificate.
·Social media extracts regarding parties’ marriage.
·Photographs.
·Reports of [Dr G] dated: 28 November 2023, 7 March 2024,
The Tribunal provided the applicant with time following the hearing on 5 February 2025 to provide further material in support of his review application and on 6 March 2025 the applicant filed further documents, including:
·Statutory Declaration declared by the applicant on 4 March 2025.
- Statutory Declaration declared by [Ms A], sister of applicant, on 4 March 2025.
- Written statement of [Mr F], friend of the applicant, dated 3 March 2025.
- Statutory Declaration declared by [B], friend of applicant, on 4 March 2025.
- Statutory Declaration declared by [C], friend of applicant, undated.
- Statutory Declaration declared by [D], friend of applicant, on 4 March 2025.
- Statutory Declaration declared by [Mr I], friend of applicant, undated.
- Statutory Declaration declared by [E], friend of applicant, on 4 March 2025.
- Documentation regarding applicant’s employment.
- Letter from photographer from parties wedding, [Mr F], dated 21 February 2025.
- Photograph – wedding related.
- Media article dated 5 November 2017 – Serial conman [name identified] fined for shonky building work.
- Further copy - NSW Births, Deaths and Marriages marriage certificate.
·Furniture purchase receipt dated 1 April 2018.
The applicant filed a further document with the tribunal, a support letter dated 7 May 2025, prepared by [Ms H], psychologist. This document was filed well after a referral had been made for an assessment and opinion from an independent expert, but did not in the view of the Tribunal raise any new matters pertaining to the family violence claim. The Tribunal did not therefore forward this document to the independent expert but has noted that the document is nonetheless referred to in the completed report of the independent expert. The Tribunal has taken it that this document was provided independently to the independent expert.
Certificate issued pursuant to S 375A of the Act
In the Departmental file, there are documents covered by a certificate issued under Section 375A of the Act. This Certificate was discussed when the applicant appeared before the AAT on 3 November 2023, at which time he was, pursuant to the provisions of s 359AA of the Act, provided with the gist of the information from the certificated documents, namely that the applicant interest in coming to Australia was to achieve permanent residency here and that he was using and selling an unprescribed medication and that he had avoided paying bills and that as a result his ex-wife was in debt. The applicant was provided time following the hearing on 3 November 2023 to comment on the particulars of information put to him and as well provided with a copy of the s 375A certificate for any comment he may wish to make regarding the validity of the Certificate.
By way of response, on 18 December 2023 the applicant filed the following documents with the AAT:
·Representative written submissions dated 15 December 2023
·Applicant written statement dated 15 December 2023
·Lebanese Police Clearance Certificate (with translation) – issued 9 November 2023
·AFP National Police Certificate – issued 6 September 2023
·Employment letters
- Psychological assessment report dated 11 December 2023 prepared by [Mr J], clinical psychologist.
·Character reference dated 15 December 2023, prepared by [Ms K]
The Tribunal has considered the material in documents covered by the Certificate and the documentation provided in response to the gist of this information which was given to the applicant when he appeared at hearing before the AAT. The Tribunal is mindful that allegations which constitute adverse information which is unfavourable to a visa applicant can be provided for a number of reasons, including out of a vexatious motivation.
In the circumstances of this case, the Tribunal has placed no weight on the alleged drug related behaviour on the part of the applicant and in any event do not consider such a factor to be relevant to the issues under consideration by the Tribunal in this matter. As to a perceived motivation to attain permanent residency in Australia, the Tribunal does not consider such a motivation to be problematic, unless in the context of the parties having entered into a contrived relationship and the Tribunal does not assess this to be the suggestion put forward in this matter. Rather, whilst the allegations include the aforementioned drug related factors and the applicant’s wish to attain permanent residency, an expanded ‘gist’ of information from the certificated documents would include that the applicant lost interest in the marriage and sponsor within months of the marriage, stopped acting in an emotional supportive way towards her and stopped making a fair contribution towards their regular living expenses.
It is apparent that at the time the Department received the material covered by the certificated documents there was a conflictual atmosphere between the applicant and other parties. The Tribunal does not for that reason consider some of the more adverse allegations, as detailed above to be information it has placed weight upon. However, the Tribunal does consider of some significance to be an acknowledgment that the parties were to have been in a relationship from the time of their engagement to early September 2018.
CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE
Relevant to this matter the primary criteria for a Subclass 820 Partner visa 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).
In the present case the sponsor on 22 October 2018 notified the Department that the parties’ relationship had ended on 7 October 2018 and that she withdrew her sponsorship for the applicant’s Partner visa. The applicant has confirmed that the parties’ relationship had ceased. There is nothing to suggest that the sponsor is deceased and there is no evidence in relation to any responsibilities with respect to any children. In the particular circumstances of this case, the applicant is seeking establish family violence on the basis of a non-judicially determined claim of family violence.
Under reg 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 reg 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: reg 1.23(3), (5), (7), (12), (14).
In order to consider whether the applicant was a victim of family violence perpetrated by the sponsor prior to the relationship ceasing between the parties, it is necessary for the Tribunal to consider whether the review applicant and the sponsor were in a genuine spousal relationship at the time of application for the Subclass 820 Partner visa. This is because the family violence criteria which provides for an exception to the sponsorship requirements require that ‘the relationship between the applicant and the sponsoring partner has ceased.’[6] The relevant partner relationship must therefore have existed before it can be determined that the relationship ‘has ceased.’ If the Tribunal determines that the partner relationship never existed, the family violence exception to the relationship continuing does not arise for consideration.[7]
[6] Cl 820.221(3)(a).
[7] MICMSMA v Gupta [2022] FCAFC 51 at [44], agreeing with Jagot J in Hanna v MIBP [2016] FCA 282.
Assessment of spousal relationship
‘Spouse’ is defined in s 5F of the Act and provides that a person is the spouse of another where the two persons are in a married relationship. Persons in a married relationship must be married to each other under a marriage that is valid for the purposes of the Act, there must be a mutual commitment to a shared life as a married couple to the exclusion of all others, the relationship must be genuine and continuing, and the couple must live together, or not live separately and apart on a permanent basis: s 5F(2)(a)-(d). In forming an opinion about these matters, regard must be had to all of the circumstances of the relationship. This includes evidence of the financial and social aspects and the nature of the parties’ household and their commitment to each other as set out in reg 1.15A(3), which is extracted in the attachment to this decision. Each of the specific matters contained in reg 1.15A(3) is effectively a question which must be answered: He v MIBP [2017] FCAFC 206.
The Department file contains a copy of a marriage certificate issued by NSW Births, deaths and Marriages on [Day 2] March 2018 which states the parties were married in [Suburb 1], NSW on [Day 1] March 2018. The Tribunal has no reason to doubt the authenticity of this document. On the evidence, the Tribunal finds that the parties were married to each other under a marriage that is valid for the purposes of the Act as required by s 5F(2)(a).
Are the other requirements for a spouse relationship met?
In this matter the parties’ marriage was quite short lived. With their wedding taking place March 2018 and the parties relationship breaking down in either 7 October 2018 or 16 November 2018, depending on the weight given to the evidence pointing to either date as the point at which the relationship ceased

There is not, as is highlighted by the delegate, an extensive amount of documentary evidence which reflects on the aspects of the parties’ relationship which the Tribunal is required to consider. The applicant’s explanation for this is that he left the marital relationship under stressed and difficult circumstances, due to the family violence and as a consequence he did not take a lot of paperwork with him. The Tribunal considers this explanation to be plausible, particular in the circumstance where family violence is alleged. The Tribunal notes that there is now more material before the Tribunal than was available to the delegate at the time of their decision.
As to the financial aspects of the relationship, the Tribunal has considered factors including whether there was joint ownership of assets; joint liabilities; extent of pooling of financial resources; any legal obligations owed to the other party; any sharing of day-to-day household expenses. In relation to these financial aspects, the applicant has conceded that during the period he was in a relationship with the sponsor they had no shared property assets. At hearing he contended that the parties did purchase furniture for the rental accommodation they shared in [Suburb 2] and that he paid the rent for this premises and met the cost of regular day to day expenses from his employment earnings. In association with the visa application, the applicant had also provided the Department with receipts for jewellery purchased for the sponsor in Lebanon and also costs associated with celebrations around the time of their engagement in Lebanon. The applicant conceded that the parties had no shared liabilities.
In relation to legal obligations towards each other, there is reference to a significant dowry which the sponsor and her immediate family are reported to have considered owed to them by the applicant. A sum of $50,000 is referred to as the alleged amount owed by the applicant and threats and intimidation from the sponsor’s family regarding this alleged liability is one of the forms of family violence which the applicant claims that he was subjected to.
In relation to the nature of the parties’ household, the Tribunal has considered factors including any joint responsibility for care and support of children; parties' living arrangements; and any sharing of housework. There is no evidence or suggestion that there is a child from the parties’ relationship, or that they had any joint responsibility for care and support of children. As to their claimed living arrangements, the Tribunal is mindful of the delegate’s concern that rent receipts for the [Suburb 2] property was not supported by other credible evidence to show the parties had lived together at that address. The Tribunal notes that whereas the delegate assessed these rent receipts covered a period from 19 September 2018 to 10 October 2018, the Tribunal’s review of the material on the Department file provides evidence of rent receipts covering the period from 28 March 2018 to 3 October 2018. Further to this, the applicant has now provided further correspondence evidence, in the form of furniture receipts and employee contact details, which provide the [Suburb 2] address as his residential address.[8]
[8] Furniture receipt and Employee Contact Details Form, filed with ART on 6 March 2025.
As to the social aspects of the relationship, the Tribunal has considered factors including whether parties represent themselves to other people as being married to each other; the opinion of friends and acquaintances about the nature of the relationship; and any basis on which the persons plan and undertake joint social activities. The Tribunal has reviewed photographs and as well the witness support letters and declarations filed with both the Department and Tribunal. On the basis of this material, the Tribunal is satisfied the parties were perceived to be a genuine couple by friends and relatives and that they socialised with such people, particularly in the early phase of their relationship. The Tribunal is also satisfied the parties represented themselves as a married couple to NSW Births, Deaths and Marriages and that the applicant, in an employee details form completed by him on 10 July 2018, identified the sponsor as his wife and person to be his primary emergency contact[9].
[9] Employee Contact Details Form, filed with ART on 6 March 2025.
As to the nature of the parties’ commitment to each other, it is the view of the Tribunal that the commitment aspects of a relationship which has failed are particularly difficult to assess. In relation to the claimed duration of the relationship, the parties claim to have made a commitment to a shared life together to the exclusion of all others in November 2015. The Tribunal considers it appropriate however to assess the duration of their relationship from the time of their marriage, which on balance the Tribunal takes to have occurred on 9 April 2018. Their marital relationship broke down irrevocably from either October or November 2018 and it is the assessment of the Tribunal that the parties’ relationship is not appropriately considered to be a long term relationship. As to the period in which the parties resided together, the Tribunal accepts that they established a shared household after their marriage in April 2018 and that this household lasted until either October or November 2018.
As to the extent of the emotional support and companionship drawn by the parties from the relationship prior to the breakdown of the relationship, the Tribunal considers this to be a complex factor to assess. The evidence suggests that whatever positive regard may have been felt for each other around the time of their marriage diminished in the months following that event. The Tribunal is satisfied such a pattern of diminishing emotional support and companionship between two people in a marital relationship is plausible in the circumstance where the relationship is under difficulty.
On balance, on the totality of the evidence before it, the Tribunal is satisfied that with respect to the relationship between the applicant and sponsor, the requirements of s.5F(2) are met and applicant was the spouse of the sponsor from the time of application until the relationship ceased. The Tribunal has reached this conclusion having regard to the applicant’s oral evidence, supported by the evidence that is now available, and having regard to the prescribed matters set out in r.1.15(3) of the Regulations.
Has the applicant suffered family violence?
The remaining issue for consideration in this case is whether the applicant has suffered family violence committed by the sponsor, within the meaning of the Regulations.
In the present case the applicant is seeking establish family violence on the basis of a non-judicially determined claim of family violence.
Has a claim of family violence been made under the regulations?
Under reg 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 reg 1.24 is provided.
The applicant in this case is seeking to rely on evidence referred to in reg 1.24 – namely, a statutory declaration under reg 1.25 and evidence of a type and number specified by the Minister for these purposes. The Tribunal notes that a new instrument, Migration (Specification of evidentiary requirements – family violence) Instrument (LIN 23/026) 2023, has been registered and commenced on 31 March 2023. The Tribunal further notes that anything done under the Migration Regulations 1994 – Specification of Evidentiary Requirements – IMMI 12/116, as is the case in this matter, continues to be in effect as if it had been done under LIN 23/026.
A statutory declaration under reg 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: reg 1.25(2). There are different requirements if the family violence is alleged to have occurred to another person: reg 1.25(3).
The applicant has submitted a Statutory Declaration declared by him on 15 August 2019; a Statutory Declaration, declared 3 September 2019 and report, dated 2 September 2019 from a registered psychologist, [Ms H]; letters dated 30 July 2019, 28 November 2023 and 7 March 2024 from [Dr G], general practitioner and a report, dated 11 December 2023, prepared by [Mr J], clinical psychologist.
Having considered the above evidence against the regulatory requirements, the Tribunal accepts statutory declarations meeting the requirements of r.1.25(2) and 1.27 have been provided. Therefore, the evidence presented meets the requirements of reg 1.24. As such, a non-judicially determined claim of family violence has been made under reg 1.23.
Has the applicant experienced family violence?
In the hearing introduction the Tribunal explained that it was taking a fresh look at the visa application and that it would form its own view as to whether the applicant had suffered relevant family violence during the period he was in a spousal relationship with the sponsor.
The Tribunal has considered the documentary evidence provided to the Tribunal in support of the applicant’s claim of family violence, including his statutory declaration, the submissions from his representative, the declarations and reports from the psychologist and medical practitioner, and the oral evidence provided during the hearing by the applicant.
In the Statutory Declaration prepared by the applicant in association with the Form 1040 Statutory declaration relating to family violence declared on 15 August 2019 the applicant describes discovering a few months after the marriage in April 2018 that the sponsor was alcohol dependent and suffering from depression and taking anti-depressant medication.
Of note, there are consistent references to two significant incidents of violence, occurring on 25 October 2018 and 16 November 2018. The first of which involved the sponsor threatening the applicant with a knife whilst she was in an intoxicated state and the second being a further incident which occurred whilst the sponsor was intoxicated, where she both struck him and threated to hit him with a bottle. The applicant claims that on this second occasion in November 2018 he was also threatened by the applicant’s father and that as a consequence of this and the sponsor’s behaviour he left the martial home and stayed with a friend. The applicant reports that he did not have further contact with the sponsor after 16 November 2018, as he feared for his safety and considered the marriage to have irrevocably broken down. The applicant has indicated that he continued to receive threats from the sponsor’s relatives for months after the relationship between he and the sponsor broke down. He reports that he became aware that her family members included people with criminal histories.
There are also references to the sponsor speaking to the applicant in an abusive and disrespectful manner. This is referred to in the declaration made by the applicant, his sister [Ms A] and is also commented on in reports prepared by the health professionals which the applicant has field in support of his family violence claim.
A concern held by the Tribunal is that there is no objective third party evidence to corroborate the applicant’s claims with regard to the emotionally and physically abusive behaviour he was subjected to by the sponsor and members of her family. Whilst his claims are supported by his sister, the Tribunal does not view this as objective as evidence from a police report or a contemporaneous report from a health professional from who the applicant sought assistance.
There is also a written statement from [Mr F], a friend of the applicant, which corroborates some of the information provided by the applicant in relation to the reported incidents on 25 October 2018 and 16 November 2018. A concern held by the Tribunal is that whilst there are in total three people that attest to the incidents on 25 October 2018 and 16 November 2018 occurring, the applicant, [Ms A] and [Mr F], both of these incidents are alleged to have taken place on dates after the sponsor notified the Department that the parties marital relationship had had separated, she had moved away from the [Suburb 2] address and that she had withdrawn sponsorship for the applicant’s partner visa application.
In relation to the reports of [Dr G], whilst a report prepared by him on 7 March 2024 states that he saw the applicant from early on after his arrival in Australia in 2017 and during early consults the applicant disclosed that his wife had become abusive towards him very early in their marriage, other reports prepared by [Dr G] earlier, on 30 July 2019 state that as at that date, the applicant had been seeing the doctor for a few months. That is, from a time after the marital relationship between the applicant and sponsor had ceased. [Dr G] referred the applicant for assessment and treatment with a psychologist, [Ms H], who first saw the applicant on 9 July 2019. A further report by [Mr J], clinical psychologist was prepared in 2023.
The Tribunal considers a limitation inherent in opinions provided by health professionals in these circumstances is that whilst their capacity to provide appropriate diagnostic opinions is to be accepted, the narrative history they refer to is not based on their direct observations and is rather, based on information provided by the applicant or other parties[10].
[10] [Mr J] report refers to information provided by the applicant’s sister, [Ms A].
After considering the totality of the evidence before it, the Tribunal was not satisfied for the purposes of reg 1.23 that the applicant has experienced relevant family violence. In accordance with the regulation on 18 March 2025 the Tribunal sought the opinion of an independent expert.
On 19 May 2025, the independent expert provided an opinion that the applicant had experienced relevant family violence.
With respect to the applicant’s experience during his spousal relationship with the sponsor, the independent expert found that:
a)    The applicant was a victim of actual and threatened physical abuse. The independent expert considered three incidents relevant to this finding, the previously discussed incidents on 25 October 2018 and 16 November 2018 and a further incident which occurred in September 2018, which occurred whilst at a restaurant. In the opinion of the independent expert, the sponsor’s alleged physical abuse and threats did cause the applicant to reasonably fear for, or to be reasonably apprehensive about, his own wellbeing or safety.
b)    The applicant was subjected to actual and threatened emotional abuse as a consequence of frequent verbal abuse from the sponsor. The independent assessed that this took place in the context of the alleged physically abusive incident occurring in October 2018 and that further threats from the sponsor and her family occurred after the applicant left the marital home on 16 November 2018 in relation to the $50,000 that was allegedly owned by the applicant to the to the sponsor. In the opinion of the independent expert, the sponsor’s alleged emotional and verbal abuse did cause the applicant to reasonably fear for, or to be reasonably apprehensive about, his own wellbeing or safety.
c)    The applicant was subjected to alleged threats of physical abuse by the sponsor’s relatives, with this occurring on 16 November 2018 when the applicant was threatened by the sponsor’s father, and following this by ongoing threats from her father and uncles that he would be physically hurt or deported if he did not pay the sponsor a sum of $50,000. In the opinion of the independent expert, the alleged threats to his safety by the sponsor and her relatives caused the applicant to reasonably fear for, or to be reasonably apprehensive about, his own wellbeing or safety.
The Tribunal is satisfied that the opinion is authorised by the Regulations, in that it is provided by an independent expert who is a person suitably qualified to make the assessment, is an employee of an organisation specified for this purpose and was properly made. Under reg 1.23 the Tribunal is required to take as correct an independent expert’s opinion, properly made.
Did some or all of the family violence occur whilst the applicant was in relationship with the sponsor?
Where the independent expert’s opinion is that a person has experienced relevant family violence, at least part of the violence that led to that opinion must have occurred while the married or de facto relationship existed. In assessing this factor, the Tribunal is of the view that there is no plausible reason to disregard the notification received by the Department on 22 October 2018 where the sponsor advised the Department that the parties’ relationship had ceased and that they had separated on 7 October 2018. In light of this, the Tribunal notes that there is therefore inconsistency between dates provided by the applicant and sponsor as to the date on which they separated, and their relationship ended. This is because the applicant has given 16 November 2018 as the date on which the parties separated, and the relationship ceased.
The Tribunal acknowledges the applicant’s claim that he remained at the [Suburb 2] address until 16 November 2018. The Tribunal is however mindful that the act of two people cohabitating at the same address does not equate to a marital or de facto relationship existing. Indeed, two people who were previously a couple can legitimately be regarded as separated but living under the one roof. The Tribunal has also noted that the evidence of rental payments for the [Suburb 2] property, which were filed by the applicant in support of the visa application, cover the period from 28 March 2018 to no later than 3 October 2018.[11] The rental receipt document was issued on 28 August 2019 and for that reason the Tribunal is satisfied that it provides a full record of rent paid for the [Suburb 2] property from 28 march 2018 until August 2019 and by inference indicates rent for the property was paid for a period no later than 3 October 2018.
[11] Departmental file.
The discrepancy evident in the different dates has significance, as for the family violence claim to be made out, the Tribunal needs to, as discussed above, be satisfied that at least part of the violence that led to the independent expert opinion must have occurred while the married relationship existed between the applicant and sponsor existed. That is, between [March] 2018 and 7 October 2018.
In a Statutory declaration sworn by the applicant on 15 August 2019 he declares that he and the sponsor cohabited in rental accommodation in [Suburb 2], NSW until 16 November 2018, being the date on which they separated. In this document the applicant declares that ‘There was a series of incidents where my estranged wife attacked me physically during arguments. The most serious of these incidents took place on 25 October and on 16 November 2018’.
When giving oral evidence at hearing before the AAT on 3 November 2023 the applicant stated that ‘the problems had started’ by the end of seven months after the applicant and sponsor moved into rental accommodation together in [Suburb 2], NSW. The applicant has elsewhere claimed that they moved into this residential location straight after their wedding, which occurred [in] March 2018. By this reckoning, it would appear the applicant has indicated that the problems, being the family violence, had started by in or around the middle of October 2018. This is broadly consistent with the applicant’s claims when appearing before the AAT, where he stated that the first of two major incidents in which the sponsor threatened him with a knife whilst in an intoxicated state occurred on 25 October 2018, followed by a second incident on 16 November 2018.

When asked by the independent expert about his first experience of family violence the applicant described what the independent expert classifies as a ‘significant incident’ occurring on 25 October 2018. In this incident the sponsor is reported to have threatened the applicant with a knife whilst in an intoxicated state[12]. There is corroboration that this incident took place on 25 October 2018 in a statutory declaration, dated 3 March 2025, declared by a friend of the applicant, [Mr F].
[12] Independent expert report – Part B [page 3 of 17]
When asked by the independent expert if he had experienced any other instances of family violence prior to the incident on 25 October 2018 the applicant indicated that there had been less significant incidents until that date, including one incident in or around September 2018 during which he had been pushed by the sponsor while the couple were in a restaurant.[13] Further to this the applicant informed the independent expert that prior to the restaurant incident the sponsor would at times swear at him however the incident in September 2018 had been the first time she had engaged in any alleged physical abuse.[14] The applicant informed the independent expert that the second last incident of alleged domestic violence occurred on 16 November 2018. In this second significant incident, the sponsor is reported to have again threatened the applicant with physical violence whilst in an intoxicated state and also that he was on that occasion threatened and verbally abused by members of the sponsor’s family of origin.
[13] Ibid [page 3 of 17]
[14] Ibid [page 4 of 17]
The two incidents upon which the independent expert opined that both actual and threatened physical abuse occurred were the reported incidents on 25 October 2018 and 16 November 2018.[15] As to incidents upon which the independent expert opined the applicant was subjected to actual and threatened verbal and emotional abuse and threats, the applicant informed the independent expert that he frequently experienced verbal abuse in the later part of the marriage.[16] The applicant informed the independent expert that he continued to receive threats from the sponsor’s family for around a one year period after 16 November 2018.[17]
[15] Ibid [page 7 of 17]
[16] Ibid [page 8 of 17]
[17] Ibid [page 5 of 17]
In a Statutory Declaration declared on 4 March 2025, [Ms A], sister of the applicant, declares that from her observations the applicant and sponsor were a loving couple at the beginning of their marriage, but that after a couple of months she began to see a shift in their relationship, where the sponsor would speak to the applicant in a ‘disrespectful and undermining manner’, causing him to feel embarrassed when sworn at by the sponsor.[18]
[18] Statutory Declaration of [Ms A], sworn 4 March 2025 and filed with ART on 6 March 2025.
In assessing this material and other available evidence the Tribunal finds that the reported incidents on 25 October 2018 and 16 November 2018 occurred after the relationship between the applicant and sponsor had ceased. The Tribunal however finds that the third incident assessed by the independent expert as constituting actual and threatened physical abuse, in which the applicant was pushed in the face after he spoke to a restaurant waitress, occurred during the period the applicant and sponsor were in a relationship.
As to the actual and threatened emotional abuse, perpetrated by either the sponsor or members of her family, whilst there are references to language used by the sponsor towards the applicant causing him to be embarrassed and feel disrespected at earlier dates[19], the independent expert opines that the actual and threatened emotional abuse occurred on or after the 25 October 2018 incident and therefore after the relationship between the applicant and sponsor had ceased.
[19] Ibid.
Whereas the Tribunal has concern regarding the reliability of aspects of the applicant’s evidence in support of the family violence claim, such as when he and the sponsor separated, the Tribunal finds that as an incident assessed by the independent expert occurred whilst the applicant and sponsor were in a marital relationship, the Tribunal finds that the applicant is taken to have experienced family violence committed by the sponsor for reg 1.22.
As the relationship between the applicant and sponsor has ceased, and the applicant has experienced relevant family violence committed by the sponsor, the applicant meets the requirements of cl 820.221(3). Given these findings, the appropriate course is to set aside the decision under review and remit the visa application to the Minister to consider the remaining criteria for the visa.
DECISION
The Tribunal sets aside the decision under review and remits the application for a Partner (Temporary) (Class UK) visa for reconsideration, in accordance with the order that the applicant meets the following criteria for a Subclass 820 visa:
·cl 820.221(3) of Schedule 2 to the Regulations
Dates of hearing(s):  19 February 2025
Representative for the Applicant:           Mrs Maryanne Issa (MARN: 1577048)
ATTACHMENT - Extract from Migration Regulations 1994
1.15A     Spouse
(1)For subsection 5F (3) of the Act, this regulation sets out arrangements for the purpose of determining whether 1 or more of the conditions in paragraphs 5F (2) (a), (b), (c) and (d) of the Act exist.
(2)If the Minister is considering an application for:
(a)a Partner (Migrant) (Class BC) visa; or
(b)a Partner (Provisional) (Class UF) visa; or
(c)a Partner (Residence) (Class BS) visa; or
(d)a Partner (Temporary) (Class UK) visa;
the Minister must consider all of the circumstances of the relationship, including the matters set out in subregulation (3).
(3)The matters for subregulation (2) are:
(a)the financial aspects of the relationship, including:
(i)       any joint ownership of real estate or other major assets; and
(ii)      any joint liabilities; and
(iii)     the extent of any pooling of financial resources, especially in relation to major financial commitments; and
(iv)    whether one person in the relationship owes any legal obligation in respect of the other; and
(v)     the basis of any sharing of day to day household expenses; and
(b)the nature of the household, including:
(i)       any joint responsibility for the care and support of children; and
(ii)      the living arrangements of the persons; and
(iii)     any sharing of the responsibility for housework; and
(c)the social aspects of the relationship, including:
(i)       whether the persons represent themselves to other people as being married to each other; and
(ii)      the opinion of the persons’ friends and acquaintances about the nature of the relationship; and
(iii)     any basis on which the persons plan and undertake joint social activities; and
(d)the nature of the persons’ commitment to each other, including:
(i)       the duration of the relationship; and
(ii)      the length of time during which the persons have lived together; and
(iii)     the degree of companionship and emotional support that the persons draw from each other; and
(iv)    whether the persons see the relationship as a long term one.
(4)If the Minister is considering an application for a visa of a class other than a class mentioned in subregulation (2), the Minister may consider any of the circumstances mentioned in subregulation (3).