2015666 (Migration)

[2022] AATA 1733

2015666 (Migration) [2022] AATA 1733 (5 May 2022)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

CASE NUMBER:  2015666

MEMBER:Meena Sripathy

DATE:5 May 2022

PLACE OF DECISION:  Sydney

DECISION:The Tribunal remits the applications for Partner (Provisional) (Class UF) visas for reconsideration, with the direction that each of the above named visa applicants meet the following criteria for a Subclass 309 (Partner (Provisional)) visa:

·cl.309.311 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations

·cl.309.321(b) of Schedule 2 to the Regulations.

Statement made on 05 May 2022 at 2:41pm

CATCHWORDS
MIGRATION – Partner (Provisional) (Class UF) visa – Subclass 309 (Partner (Provisional)) – members of the family unit – dependent on the primary visa applicant – time of application circumstances – full-time studies – money transfers – limited informal work – identity documents – taskeras and passports obtained in the same process – decision under review remitted     

LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958, s 65
Migration Regulations 1994, rr 1.03, 1.05, 1.12; Schedule 2, cls 309.311, 309.321

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

1. This is an application for review of a decision made by a delegate of the Minister for Immigration on 17 August 2020 to refuse to grant the visa applicants Partner (Provisional) (Class UF) visas under s.65 of the Migration Act 1958 (the Act).

2. On 30 June 2013 [Ms A] applied for a Partner (Provisional) Class UF (Subclass 309 and Partner (Migrant) Class BC (subclass 100) visas on the basis of her relationship with the sponsor, the review applicant, [named]. The application included, as secondary visa applicants, eight children of the relationship. At that time, Class UF contained only one subclass: Subclass 309 (Partner (Provisional). The criteria for the grant of this visa are set out in Part 309 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.

3. The delegate refused to grant the visa to the above named secondary visa applicants on the basis that they did not satisfy cl.309.311 because the delegate was not satisfied that any of these visa applicants were dependent on the primary visa applicant for financial support to meet their basic needs for food, clothing or shelter as required under the definition of dependent in r.1.05A and therefore was not satisfied they were members of the family unit of the primary visa applicant and do not meet cl.309.311.

4. The review applicant sought review of the decision to the Tribunal on 22 October 2020.  Submissions and evidence in support of the review was provided to the Tribunal in November 2021 and April 2022.

5. The Tribunal requested Department files relating to applications made by the review applicant upon his arrival to Australia in 2010 and previous XB202 visa applications proposed by the review applicant and these were provided by the Department to the Tribunal. 

6. Departmental records indicate the primary visa applicant and youngest two secondary visa applicants were granted Partner (Migrant) Class BC (subclass 100) visas on 11 November 2020 and they arrived in Australia [in] June 2021.

7. The review applicant appeared before the Tribunal in person on 28 April 2022 to give evidence and present arguments. The Tribunal also received oral evidence from [Ms A], the primary visa applicant and review applicant’s wife, now in Australia. The review applicant was represented in relation to the review and the representative attended the hearing.

8. For the following reasons, the Tribunal has concluded that the matter should be remitted for reconsideration.

   CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE

9. The issue in the present case is whether, at the time of application on 30 June 2013, the visa applicants were members of the family unit of [Ms A], the primary visa applicant.  The visa applicants claim to be the biological children of the primary visa applicant and review applicant and therefore claim to be dependent children of the primary visa applicant and her partner.

10. Clause 309.311 requires that, at the time of application, the visa applicant is a member of the family unit of, and made a combined application with, a person who satisfies the primary criteria in Subdivision 309.21.

11. At time of decision, the applicant must continue to be a member of the family unit of a person who, having satisfied the primary criteria, is the holder of a Subclass 309 (partner Provisional visa (cl.309.311(a)); or cl.309.321(b) applies where the Minister found the visa applicant was not a member of the family unit of the primary applicant, and the Tribunal has found the visa applicant to be a member of the family unit of the person who satisfies the primary criteria subsequent to that person being granted a Subclass 309 and Subclass 100 visa.  Information before the Tribunal indicates the primary visa applicant was granted Subclass 309 and Subclass 100 visas on 11 November 2021 and arrived in Australia [in] June 2021. Therefore, as at the time of this decision, the Tribunal considers cl.309.321(b) is applicable in the present case.

12. The expression ‘member of the family unit’ is defined in r.1.12. The relevant version of r.1.12 (applicable for visa applications made prior to 16 November 2016) provides:

    (1) For the definition of member of the family unit in subsection 5(1) of the Act, and subject to subregulations (2), (2A), (6) and (7), a person is a member of the family unit of another person (in this subregulation called the family head) if the person is:

    (a)      a spouse or de facto partner of the family head; or

    (b) a dependent child of the family head or of a spouse or de facto partner of the family head; or

    (c) a dependent child of a dependent child of the family head or of a spouse or de facto partner of the family head; or

    (e) a relative of the family head or of a spouse or de facto partner of the family head who:

    (i)       does not have a spouse or de facto partner; and

    (ii)      is usually resident in the family head’s household; and

    (iii)      is dependent on the family head.

13. A number of the terms used in r.1.12 are subject to further specific definitions in the Act or Regulations.  Specifically ‘child’, ‘dependent child’ and ‘dependent’ have specific definitions in the Act and Regulations.

14. ‘Dependent child’ is defined in r.1.03 as a child or step-child of a person who has not turned 18, or has turned 18 and is dependent on that person. 

15. ‘Dependent’ has the meaning given by regulation 1.05A:

    (1)    Subject to subregulation (2), a person (the first person) is dependent on another person if:

    (a)    at the time when it is necessary to establish whether the first person is dependent on the other person:

    (i)    the first person is, and has been for a substantial period immediately before that time, wholly or substantially reliant on the other person for financial support to meet the first person’s basic needs for food, clothing and shelter; and

    (ii)    the first person’s reliance on the other person is greater than any reliance by the first person on any other person, or source of support, for financial support to meet the first person’s basic needs for food, clothing and shelter; or

    (b)    the first person is wholly or substantially reliant on the other person for financial support because the first person is incapacitated for work due to the total or partial loss of the first person’s bodily or mental functions.

    Delegate’s decision

16. Telephone interviews were conducted by the delegate on 5 and 6 February 2020 with the primary and secondary applicants and they were asked about their current activities. On the basis of information provided at these interviews, the delegate made adverse credibility assessments regarding the secondary visa applicants subject of this review, and was not satisfied that any of the named visa applicants were dependent on the primary visa applicant for financial support to meet their basic needs for food, clothing or shelter as required under the definition of dependent in r.1.05A and therefore not satisfied they were members of the family unit of the primary visa applicant and did not meet cl.309.311.

17. With respect, the Tribunal notes that the delegate assessed the visa applicants’ circumstances at time of decision (17 August 2020) to reach a conclusion on whether they met a criteria applicable at time of application (being 30 June 2013) and in doing so, failed to correctly assess their circumstances at time of application.

18. On review, the Tribunal will assess whether it is satisfied the secondary visa applicants subject of this review were dependent children of the primary visa applicant at time of application on the basis of their circumstances as at that point in time.  In relation to the time of decision criteria, the situation has now changed as the primary visa applicant has since been granted a Subclass 100 visa, and therefore cl.309.321(b) applies.  Therefore, for the purposes of the review, the Tribunal considers the information obtained by the delegate in the interviews of 5 and 6 February 2020 are not relevant to the issues arising before the Tribunal.

    Evidence before the Tribunal

19. On 9 November 2021 and 21 April 2022, the Tribunal received submissions and supporting evidence from the applicant’s representative. 

20. The submissions provided the following information relating to the visa applicants:

    ·[The first visa applicant] – is the biological child of the primary visa applicant and sponsor.  He was [age] years old at the time of application. He has been and is residing in Quetta with his siblings. He was studying at [grade] in [School 1] at time of application, and was financially dependent on his father.  Presently he continues to reside with his siblings, is not working, is financially dependent on his father and is single. A translated Statement from this applicant was attached.

    ·[The second visa applicant] – is the biological child of the primary visa applicant and sponsor.  He was [age] years old at the time of application, studying in [grade], and therefore was a dependent child of the primary visa applicant. Presently he continues to reside with his siblings, is studying, is financially dependent on his father and is single. A translated Statement from this applicant and evidence of his study was attached.

    ·[The third visa applicant] - is the biological child of the primary visa applicant and sponsor.  He was [age] years old at the time of application. He has been and is residing in Quetta with his siblings. He was studying at [grade] in [School 1] at time of application, and was financially dependent on his father.  Presently he continues to reside with his siblings, is studying, is financially dependent on his father and is single. A translated Statement from this applicant and evidence of his study was attached.

    ·[The fourth visa applicant] – is the biological child of the primary visa applicant and sponsor.  He was [age] years old at the time of application and therefore was a dependent child of the primary visa applicant. Presently he continues to reside with his siblings, is studying, is financially dependent on his father and is single. Evidence of his study was attached.

    ·[The fifth visa applicant] - is the biological child of the primary visa applicant and sponsor.  She was [age] years old at the time of application and was studying in [grade] at time of application and reliant on financial support from the review applicant. Presently she continues to reside with her siblings, is studying, is financially dependent on her father and is single. A translated Statement from this applicant and evidence of her study was attached.

    ·[The sixth visa applicant] - is the biological child of the primary visa applicant and sponsor.  She was [age] years old at the time of application and was studying in [grade] at time of application and therefore a dependent child. Presently she continues to reside with her siblings, is studying, is financially dependent on her father and is single. A translated Statement from this applicant and evidence of her study was attached.

    ·Evidence of financial transfers by the review applicant from October 2017 to 2021.

21. On 26 April 2022 the Tribunal received a further submission and supporting documents from the applicant’s representative. This submission pointed out that the delegate’s decision incorrectly assessed the applicants on the basis of their circumstances in 2020 without considering their circumstances at time of application in 2013, and proceeded to make submissions that each of the applicants met the definition of dependent child of the primary visa application at time of application and continues to meet the definition at time of decision.    

22. Prior to the hearing the representative submitted further supporting documents including evidence of money transfers to Pakistan from March 2019 to March 2022; further identity documents for the secondary applicants; a tenancy agreement; scanned copies of untranslated written documents from the secondary applicants; video link relating to situation of Afghan refugees in Pakistan: ‘We have nothing’: Afghan refugees languish in Pakistan

23. At the hearing the review applicant provided the following evidence.  He was born in [a named] village in the Jaghori area of Ghazni province, Afghanistan. He believes he was born in the year [specified], although he is not certain of this.  When he first came to Australia he had no documents and was not aware of his year or date of birth.  He obtained this information after coming here, when he sought to bring his wife and children to Australia and required documents for them.  After this he obtained a taskera and from this document was able to obtain taskeras and passports for his family members. He had no documentation when he arrived in Australia by boat. 

24. The Tribunal asked about his family composition.  He said he was married twice. His first wife was his brother’s wife, [Ms B].  He married her in a religious marriage after his brother died.  They had no children together.  After she passed away he married his second wife, the primary visa applicant in the present application, to whom he is still married.  This was also a religious marriage.  All of his 8 children are with his second (current) wife.

25. The applicant initially said that [Ms B] and his brother had one child together, [named], but he ran away from them after [Ms B] died.  Later in his evidence, he said that in fact [this child] was not his brother’s child, but a child he and his current wife adopted.  He lived with them for some years and then left, they do not know where he went and where he is now. 

26. The Tribunal asked the applicant about his children.  He listed them by order of birth as follows: [8 names in order].  The youngest two are here in Australia with him now. 

27. The applicant said he left Afghanistan for Pakistan in 2005 with his wife and six children, the youngest two were born in Pakistan.  No other family members came with him at that time. 

28. Later in the hearing the applicant referred to another wife of his brother, [Ms C], who has four children, [named].  They are young children and all still reside in Quetta, Pakistan.  He is responsible for all of them as his brother’s children.  The Tribunal noted that he initially included these children in this application but they were later withdrawn.  He said he withdrew them because he wanted to make sure his biological children were granted visas and he did not want to complicate the application with these other applicants.

29. The Tribunal noted that there was some different information regarding his family composition contained in other applications he made since coming to Australia.  For example he referred to [Ms D] in his initial entry interview.  He said this was his father’s wife, his step mother.  They were married for 10 years but had no children. He did not marry her. She is now deceased. The applicant explained that when he came to Australia by boat his situation was very difficult.  He is old, and his memory is not good.  He may have provided information that was not accurate at that time. 

30. The Tribunal asked what he, his wife and the children did when they came to Pakistan from Afghanistan. He said they had no documents, no permission to work.  They lived in hiding and with great difficulty. They had to work informally and relied on rental income from property in Afghanistan. From his best recollection, the children were all young. 

31. The Tribunal explained that it was required to assess the visa applicant’s circumstances at the time of application, being 30 June 2013 and asked what the children were doing at that time. He said only [the fifth named applicant] was over 18 years at that time.  She was doing some dress making work informally. The two older boys were also working informally in a [factory]. The work was unlawful and insecure and after a period they were not allowed to do it.  The rest of the children were under 18 and were studying in unofficial schools for Hazaras.

32. The Tribunal asked the applicant what he did for a living before he came to Australia. He said that he too was not allowed to work. In Afghanistan he lived and worked off the land.  He rented his lands out when he left and survived on the rental income for a period and some informal work.

33. After he came to Australia and obtained a visa he returned to Pakistan some 4-5 times to visit his family.  The children were not doing much during this time, they were either studying or playing sport. They had no permission to work or study formally.  He began sending money as soon as he started receiving income support in Australia.  The family was relying on his financial transfers since that time.  He confirmed that they lived in rental properties, changing a few times depending on the rent. His older sons did some informal work but they had no legal permission to work so it was not secure.

34. The Tribunal took oral evidence from [Ms A], the primary visa applicant.  She confirmed that she married the review applicant although she cannot recall the year.   He did not have any other wives at the time she married him or since.  They have 8 children together and she provided the order of birth of the children: [8 names in order].

35. She confirmed that none of the children had permission to work in Pakistan and they were all reliant on the review applicant’s financial transfers from Australia.  She and her eldest daughter did some informal work as dressmakers for a period but it was insecure and did not last long.

36. The Tribunal discussed with the representative the issues arising from the evidence regarding the correct ages of the visa applicants, noting certain discrepancies in the information provided by the review applicant in earlier applications. The representative referred to the applicant’s evidence about the difficult circumstances at the time of his arrival and inadequate advice. He had no documentation and faced difficulties providing accurate information at that time given his circumstances of age, lack of education and illiteracy.

37. The representative observed the Department, at folio 204 in the application file, carefully assessed the primary visa applicant and youngest two secondary visa applicant’s identification documents, namely taskeras and passports issued in 2018, and concluded that it was satisfied with their identity on the basis of these documents. The representative submitted that given that all of the secondary visa applicants obtained their documents at the same time and using the same primary documents, it is only reasonable and logical that their documents are also accepted on the same basis.  Their taskera’s were issued at the same time and in the same format, and their passports list the taskera number.

    FINDINGS AND REASONS

1. For the reasons that follow, the Tribunal has reached a different conclusion to the delegate on the time of application criteria cl.309.311.  It is satisfied the refused secondary visa applicants were the dependent children of the primary visa applicant and therefore members of her family unit at time of application and meet cl.309.311. 

2. As the primary visa applicant has since been granted a Subclass 309 Partner (Provisional) visa and Subclass 100 (Partner) visa, they meet cl.309.321(b) at time of decision. 

   Assessment of r.1.12(1)(b) – dependent child

3. Regulation 1.12(1)(b) provides that a person is a member of the family unit of another person (the family head) if the person is a dependent child of the family head or of a spouse or de facto partner of the family head. ‘Child’ is defined in s.5CA of the Act and clearly includes (though is not limited to) biological children of a person.

   Are the visa applicants the biological children of the primary visa applicant and review applicant?

4. The visa applicants claim to be the children of the primary visa applicant and the review applicant.  Having carefully reviewed the Department’s file [number], and other relevant files relating to the review applicant’s applications to the Department since his initial arrival in Australia,[1] the Tribunal is satisfied the applicant has been generally consistent since his arrival in Australia in 2010 in declaring his family composition, comprising his wife and eight biological children. Their names and order of birth correspond with the named visa applicants in the present application. Despite some discrepancies and variations in the years of birth provided at an early stage of his first application, which was corrected immediately at that first interview, the years of birth for the children have been maintained consistently in all applications since then. The Tribunal notes there is some inconsistency in the documentation as to whether first named ([name]) and fifth named ([name]) visa applicants, the eldest son and daughter, are the children of his first wife, and therefore step children of the primary visa applicant, as indicated in his initial entry interview and the 2011 Humanitarian visa application, or his biological children, as indicated in the present application. The review applicant declared he had two wives from the begining and that the first wife is deceased. However, he was adamant in his oral evidence to the Tribunal that all eight of his children are the children of his marriage to the primary visa applicant. The primary visa applicant in her evidence to the Tribunal also confirmed that all eight children are her biological children.  Their evidence of the order of birth of the children is consistent throughout the history of applications made. 

   [1] The Tribunal requested from the Department the review applicant’s initial visa application file made upon arrival to Australia in 2010 [[file number]], and a subsequent application in which he was the proposer for his wife and children for a Humanitarian visa in 2011 [[file number]] .

5. Apart from the above mentioned discrepancies in previous applications, which have since been corrected or reasonably explained, there is no other credible evidence before the Tribunal to contradict the claim that the refused visa applicants are the biological children of the review applicant and primary visa applicant.  All the visa applicants were successful in being issued new format taskeras and passports by Afghan central authorities in 2018, which confirms that they are the children of the review applicant. The primary visa applicant has been found to be the partner of the review applicant and was granted a visa on this basis.

6. Therefore, on the weight of evidence before it, the Tribunal is satisfied that each of the named visa applicants are the children of the primary visa applicant and review applicant.

   Were the visa applicants dependent children of the primary visa applicant at time of application?

7. The evidence before the Tribunal is that the visa applicants were born in [specified years] respectively, which means that they ranged between ages of [age] and [age] years old at time of application, on 30 June 2013.

8. Evidence to support the visa applicant’s ages are their taskeras and passports issued by the Afghan government in 2018.  The Tribunal notes the representative’s submission that the acceptance of these identity documents by the Department in respect of the primary visa applicant and two youngest children should be equally applicable to the remaining visa applicants as they all obtained the documents at the same time and using the same source documents. 

9. Specifically, in relation to these applicants the Departmental file notes observe that the taskeras issued in 2018 were in electronic format and were used to obtain their passports, and the taskera numbers were listed on the passport.  The format was observed to be consistent with other genuine taskeras issued by ACCRA and the biographic information on the taskera correlates with information provided by the applicants in their application and with information provided by the sponsor regarding his family composition on arrival in Australia in 2010. The attestations on the taskeras were in the correct format and confirm applicants used their new taskeras to obtain their MRZ passports. Afghan authorities advise that MRZ passports are only issued to someone who has presented in person to the Kabul Central Passports Department, Ministry of Interior, Afghanistan. The details on the newly issued Taskera and MRZ passport are consistent.  The Department was satisfied the applicants have provided evidence that they have travelled to Afghanistan.[2]  The Tribunal notes and acknowledges that the Department file notes go on to state that identity assessment for the remaining secondary visa applicants was not conducted, and concerns were indicated that they appear older than their claimed ages.  However no other basis for this assertion appears in any of the Department file records seen by the Tribunal, and for this reason the Tribunal gives it no weight.  On the other hand, the Tribunal accepts the taskeras and passports of the visa applicants subject of this review application were obtained at the same time and using the same source documents as the primary applicant and youngest two children.  Following the logic of the analysis and reasoning accepted by the delegate for those applicants, and in the absence of any contradictory evidence, it accepts these documents as evidence of the age and identity of the remaining secondary visa applicants.  

   [2] [File number], folio 204

10. On the basis of the evidence of their taskera and passports, the Tribunal accepts [the second, fourth and sixth named applicants] were [age], [age] and [age] years old respectively and therefore under 18 years of age at time of application and therefore dependent children of the primary visa applicant under paragraph (a) of the definition of ‘dependent child’ and members of her family unit. 

11. On the evidence, the Tribunal finds [the first named applicant] was [age] years old at time of application, [the third named applicant] had recently turned [age] years and [the fifth named applicant] was [age] years at the time of application. 

12. The evidence before it indicates all of the review applicant’s children were living together with the primary visa applicant at an address in [a specified location in] Quetta at the time of application on 30 June 2013, in a rented property. There is limited evidence to corroborate their claims about their activities as at this time, but taking into account their relatively young ages and circumstances as Afghan refugees in Pakistan, and the oral evidence of the review applicant at hearing, the Tribunal is prepared to accept it is plausible and credible that [the fifth named applicant] may have been engaged in dress making work in the informal sector and the two older boys, also over 18 years, may have been working informally in a [factory]. It accepts, as the delegate also did, that the secondary visa applicants had no lawful status in Quetta to reside or work, and therefore accepts that any work they were able to obtain would have been insecure and minimally paid. The review applicant told the Tribunal as soon as he was granted a visa and released from detention he began remitting money to support his family, and he has continued to that since then.  Evidence of consistent financial transfers going back to 2017 has been provided. The review applicant explained that records going further back are unavailable due to the nature of the remittance services he used and their record keeping capacity. Apart from this there is no other documentary evidence before the Tribunal to either support or contradict these claims.  The review applicant maintained that, despite the casual and intermittent work engaged in by his elder three children at this time, they lived with the primary visa applicant and were substantially supported financially by the remittances sent by him from Australia.   

13. The applicant’s claims and description of the insecurities and difficulties faced by Afghan refugees in Pakistan at the time he fled there with his family in 2005 is generally supported by available country information which describes the most common livelihood opportunities available to Afghans in Quetta being marginal activities, limited participation of women in the labour market,[3] and limited access to education and schooling.[4]  Country information indicates that Afghans who arrived in Pakistan after 2005 or 2007 were ineligible for Proof of Registration cards, which in any event expired by June 2013[5], and were considered unregistered which would have contributed to their insecure and impecunious situation. 

    [3] See for example, Afghanistan Research and Evaluation Unit (AREU), Afghans in Quetta. Settlements, Livelihoods, Support Networks and Cross-Border Linkages, January 2006, available at: 4 May 2022]

    [4] Pakistan 2010 Human Rights Report, United States of America, Department of State, 4 August 2011, CISD9559B12407, p. 46

    [5] US Department of State 2013, Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for 2012 – Pakistan, 19 April, Sec.2d ‘Protection of Refugees’

14. Having regard to the above, the Tribunal accepts that [the first named applicant], [the third named applicant] and [the fifth named applicant] were substantially reliant on the review applicant, the partner of the primary visa applicant, for financial support to meet their basic needs for food, clothing and shelter, and that their reliance on him for their basis needs was greater than any reliance on any income from employment.  The Tribunal is satisfied that [the first named applicant], [the third named applicant] and [the fifth named applicant] were dependent on the review applicant, the partner of the primary visa applicant or family head, at time of application.

15. Accordingly, the Tribunal is satisfied that, at the time of application, each of the named visa applicants were dependent children of the primary visa applicant and thus r.1.12(1)(b) was met.

16. Therefore, each of the named visa applicants meet cl.309.311 at time of application.

17. At time of decision, the visa applicants must meet ccl.309.321.  Subparagraph (b) of that clause applies in circumstances where, subsequent to the delegate finding the applicant was not a member of the family unit of the primary visa applicant, the primary visa applicant has been granted a Subclass 309 and Subclass 100 visa and the Tribunal has found the applicant to be a member of the family unit of the person who satisfies the primary criteria.  Above, the Tribunal found the visa applicants subject of this review to be members of the family unit of the primary visa applicant.  At time of decision, Departmental records indicate the primary visa applicant has been granted a Class BC Subclass 100 visa. 

18. Therefore, each of the named visa applicants meet cl.309.321(b). 

19. Given the findings above, the appropriate course is to remit the application for the visa to the Minister to consider the remaining criteria for a Subclass 309 visa.

20. The Tribunal observes that this application was made in June 2013, almost 9 years ago. The prolonged processing of the application has caused significant hardship and emotional and psychological stress for the review applicant and his family. Perusal of the files suggests, given the verification and acceptance of the primary visa applicants and two youngest children’s identity documentation, there is no further reason to unduly delay the grant of the visas to the remaining family members and the Tribunal recommends consideration be given to priority processing of this application. 

    DECISION

21. The Tribunal remits the applications for Partner (Provisional) (Class UF) visas for reconsideration, with the direction that the first named visa applicant meets the following criteria for a Subclass 309 (Partner (Provisional)) visa:

    ·cl.309.311 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations

    ·cl.309.321(b) of Schedule 2 to the Regulations.

    Meena Sripathy
    Member