ALDHAHER (Migration)

[2018] AATA 5676

ALDHAHER (Migration) [2018] AATA 5676 (18 December 2018)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

REVIEW APPLICANT:  Ms Najla Mahmoud Abdullah ALDHAHER

VISA APPLICANTS:  Mr Muataz Ali Mahjoub MAHJOUB
Ms Sara Ali MAHJOUB

CASE NUMBER:  1702856

DIBP REFERENCE(S):  BCC2014/984933

MEMBER:Justin Owen

DATE:18 December 2018

PLACE OF DECISION:  Sydney

DECISION:The Tribunal remits the applications for Partner (Provisional) (Class UF) visas for reconsideration, with the direction that the 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 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations

Statement made on 18 December 2018 at 4:01pm

CATCHWORDS
MIGRATION – Partner (Provisional) (Class UF) visa – Subclass 309 (Partner (Provisional)) – member of family unit – dependents of primary applicant – 30 years of age – highly educated – substantially reliant on their father for food, clothing and shelter – prohibited from work by Yemeni visa conditions – visa applicants currently not in a relationship ­– credible witnesses – decision under review remitted

LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss 5F, 65
Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth), rr 1.05A, 1.12; 2.08B; Schedule 2, cls 309.311, 309.321

CASES
Al Naqi v Minister for Immigration & Anor [2007] FMCA 874
Huynh v MIMIA [2006] FCAFC 122
Kauri Timber Co (Tas) Pty Ltd v Reeman [1973] HCA 8 128 CLR 177

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 11 January 2017 to refuse to grant the visa applicants Partner (Provisional) (Class UF) visas under s.65 of the Migration Act 1958 (the Act).

2. The first named visa applicant (the visa applicant) applied for the visa on 14 April 2014 on the basis of their relationship with their sponsor, the review applicant. 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 on the basis that the visa applicants did not satisfy cl.309.311 because as secondary applicants they were not members of the family unit of the primary applicant as defined in the Migration Regulations at Reg 1.12 at the time the visa application was made.

4. The review applicant appeared before the Tribunal on 14 December 2018 to give evidence and present arguments. The Tribunal also received oral evidence from the primary applicant Dr Ali Mahjoub Abdullah Abdullah and the visa applicants Mr Muataz Ali Mahjoub Mahjoub and Ms Sara Ali Mahjoub.  The Tribunal hearing was conducted with the assistance of an interpreter in the Arabic and English languages.

5. The review applicant was represented in relation to the review by her registered migration agent. The representative attended the Tribunal hearing.

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

   CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE

7. The Minister’s delegate found that the visa applicants were not members of the family unit of the primary applicant at the time the visa application was made.  

8. The Tribunal has taken into consideration all the evidence in the Departmental file BCC2014/984933, the Tribunal’s file 1702856 and the oral evidence given by all parties at the Tribunal’s hearing. 

   What is the background of the case based on all the evidence? 

9. On 14 April 2014 the primary applicant Dr Ali Mahjoub Abdullah Abdullah applied for a 309/100 Partner visa, sponsored by his wife, Australian permanent resident Mrs Najla Mahmoud Abdullah Aldhaher (the review applicant).  The visa applicant Mr Muataz Ali Mahjoub Mahjoub applied as a dependant of the primary applicant. Mr Mahjoub’s twin sister, Ms Sara Ali Mahjoub was added to the application in accordance with regulation 2.08B on 30 March 2016.  On 11 January 2017 the application of the visa applicants was refused by the delegate.  An application for a review of this refusal was subsequently made to the Tribunal.

   Review 

10. On the basis of the evidence before it the Tribunal is satisfied that the visa applicants are the twin son and daughter of the primary applicant and the review applicant. The visa applicants must be dependent on the primary applicant in order to meet the definition of ‘dependent’ as outlined in r.1.05A (a): Reg. 1.05A. The definition of ‘dependent’ requires the visa applicants are and have been for a substantial period immediately before that time wholly or substantially reliant on the primary applicant for financial support to meet their basic needs for food, clothing and shelter. In addition, the visa applicant’s reliance on the primary applicant for this financial support must be greater than his or her reliance on any other person or source of support. Cl.309.311 requires that the visa applicants be a member of the family unit of the primary applicant at the time of application.  Cl.309.321 requires that the visa applicant be a member of the family unit of the primary applicant at the time of decision. 

11. The primary applicant and the review applicant attended the Tribunal’s hearing.  The visa applicants gave evidence over the telephone from Turkey where they are both currently residing on Visitor visas.

12. The review applicant said she currently lives in Lurnea with her husband the primary applicant and her other two children.  The primary applicant was granted his 309 visa in February 2017.  The Tribunal notes that the review applicant’s other two children are Australian citizens who were born in Australia.  The Tribunal notes from Migration Review Tribunal decision record 1108051 that the primary applicant and the review applicant lived in Australia between 1983 and 1986 whilst the primary applicant was studying dentistry at the University of Sydney.  Their two sons were born in Australia during this time.  After the primary applicant completed his tertiary studies the family moved back to Iraq. 

13. The primary applicant and the review applicant in their oral evidence stated that the primary applicant had been looking after the visa applicants – who are now 30 years of age – since they were born.  The Tribunal notes that the primary applicant was Professor of Dentistry at the main university in Yemen from 2003 until his departure for Australia after being granted his 309 visa in 2017. 

14. The primary applicant in response to the Tribunal’s questions said over the past five years he had provided the visa applicants with whatever they needed for daily expenses and for living.  He said whilst in Yemen he was their only support.  After their graduation from university he stated their visas precluded them from working in either a paid or unpaid role.  He said he was earning wages as a Professor at the university so provided them with whatever they needed.  He admitted he did not write down everything he provided them at that time so lacked evidence of all his contributions whilst they were living together as a family in Yemen.  

15. All witnesses in their oral evidence stated that the primary applicant had been responsible for the visa applicants and they had been dependent upon him for food, clothing and shelter since birth.  In oral evidence the review applicant stated that the primary applicant moved to Yemen in 2003 for work.  As a former member of the Baathist Party he no longer had employment.  The family followed him to Iraq in 2006. 

16. In 2009 the Australian-born sons of the primary applicant and review applicant returned to Australia.  The review applicant joined them in 2012.  In 2017 after the primary applicant was granted his 309 visa, the visa applicants left Yemen and went to Turkey after a brief visit for three weeks to Iraq to obtain a new visa. 

17. The Tribunal asked the review applicant about the support the primary applicant had provided the visa applicants between 2013 and today.  She said that he provided everything for the visa applicants.  She said they were totally reliant upon their father.  At the time of application the primary applicant was a Professor where the university provided him with accommodation as part of his tenure.  The review applicant said the visa applicants lived with the primary applicant at this residence.  She pointed out that according to their visas to reside in Yemen they were prohibited from working.  Copies of the visa applicants Yemeni Residence Permits for the period between 2010 and 2016 (D1, Folio.190-208) support this claim.  The primary applicant and the visa applicants corroborated the review applicant’s evidence.

18. The parties were consistent in their evidence as to the amount of money the primary applicant sends the visa applicants to support them now he is in Australia and they are in Turkey. 

19. All parties in oral evidence said no one else supports the visa applicants financially or have done so previously.

20. The Tribunal noted that the visa applicants are now 30 years old and asked whether either are currently married, in a de facto relationship or has a partner.  All parties in their oral evidence stated that neither of the visa applicants is involved in any relationship or has a partner. 

21. The Tribunal noted visa applicant Ms Sara Ali Mahjoub was previously married.  The Tribunal asked about the circumstances of the marriage and subsequent divorce.  The review applicant said Sara Ali Mahjoub was engaged in June 2013, was married in February 2014 and was divorced in June 2014.  She explained it had been a disastrous arranged marriage where the former husband had cheated on Ms Sara Ali Mahjoub.  It was claimed that the visa applicant only lived with her then husband for about a month and only remained in Iraq until June 2014 after the divorce was officially confirmed.  The visa applicant said she then moved back into her father’s University accommodation in Yemen.  She claims to have remained dependent on the primary applicant during this time.  The review applicant said that the primary applicant had paid for all the visa applicant’s expenses during this time including her flights to and from Yemen.  The Tribunal asked all parties what ongoing relationship any of the family had with the visa applicant’s former husband.  All denied having any further contact whatsoever with the former husband since the divorce four years ago. 

22. The Tribunal enquired as to why the visa applicant Ms Sara Ali Mahjoub was only added to the visa application as a secondary applicant to the primary applicant some sixteen months after she resumed depending upon her father in June 2014.  All the parties in evidence said Ms Sara Ali Mahjoub was devastated by the divorce and not in any frame of mind to consider such things initially.  It was also claimed they were unaware she could be subsequently added as a secondary applicant after lodgement of the application until the information was volunteered by their legal representatives. 

23. The Tribunal noted the excellent academic graduate and postgraduate qualifications of each of the visa applicants: a network engineer and a dentist respectively.  The Tribunal noted they had completed their studies around 2011 and 2012 and asked about their time in the workforce.  The primary applicant said that they were simply prohibited from working in Yemen due to their visas so they had been unable to end their dependency upon him.  They were reliant on him for food, clothing and shelter.  The Tribunal asked whether they considered returning to Iraq to work.  The primary applicant said returning to work there was very dangerous and risky for the visa applicants given their parents status as former members of the Baathist Party and the dangers they faced if returning.  Seeking employment with such a family background also represented a significant challenge. They had therefore remained dependent on the primary applicant whilst he worked in Yemen as a Professor of Dentistry.  After he migrated to Australia they moved to Turkey on a visitor visa that also precluded them from seeking employment (their ability to remain in Yemen ceased upon the primary applicant's departure as they were dependents on his visa).  As a result they continued to depend upon the primary applicant.  The Tribunal noted the extensive records the review applicant provided concerning the regular monthly payments to each of the visa applicants and copies of rental lease agreements for an apartment in Turkey that the primary applicant is financing (T1, Folio37-39 & 44-45).  The visa applicants in oral evidence each stated the primary applicant provides them with US$450 on the 28^th of each month which is to fund all their expenses.  The Tribunal notes the corroborative evidence of the primary applicant of these payments from July 2017 up until the present day.  

24. All parties in oral evidence confirmed that the visa applicants are not disabled nor have any mental or physical impairment.    

    FINDINGS AND REASONS

25. For the purposes of the provisions of cl.309.311, cl.309.321, r.1.12 and r.1.05A in this case the “family head” is the primary applicant, Dr Ali Mahjoub Abdullah Abdullah.  The Regulations distinguish between a person and his or her spouse.  Therefore, the visa applicant must establish that they are dependent on Dr Ali Mahjoub Abdullah Abdullah (as defined by Regulation 1.05A) in order to satisfy the provisions of clause 309.311 and which is required for the grant of a Partner (Provisional) (Class UF) visa.

26. Regulation 1.05A requires that the visa applicant must be wholly or substantially reliant on Dr Ali Mahjoub Abdullah Abdullah for financial support to meet her basic needs for food, clothing and shelter. It also requires that this degree of reliance has to have been for a substantial period immediately before the time that the application is being determined and that such reliance of financial support on Dr Abdullah is greater than their reliance on any other person or source of financial support.

27. The Tribunal has considered the visa applicants’ application against r.12(1)(b) (as a dependent child of the family head). 

28. Based on the oral evidence of all the parties the Tribunal accepts that the visa applicants (as the son and daughter respectively of the primary applicant) are relatives of the family head or of a spouse or de facto partner of the family head and accepts the testimony that neither has a spouse or de facto partner.  The Tribunal is therefore satisfied that r.1.12(1)(e)(i) is met.

29. The visa applicants in oral evidence as well as the review applicant and the primary applicant have all stated that neither of the visa applicants is disabled nor suffering from any mental or physical impairment.  Accordingly, the applicants do not meet Regulation 1.05A(1)(b).

30. The Tribunal has therefore considered whether the visa applicants meet the definition of ‘dependent’ as per Regulation 1.05A(1)(a).

31. The Tribunal was impressed by the consistent oral testimony provided by the review applicant and corroborated by the primary applicant and the visa applicants.  The Tribunal is satisfied that the shelter (homes) the applicants have resided (both prior and since the primary applicant’s departure for Australia), was provided for financially by the primary applicant. Insofar as the financial support to meet the visa applicant’s ‘food’ costs are concerned, the Tribunal is satisfied from the primary applicant’s consistent oral evidence that he provided substantially if not often wholly for these costs.  The Tribunal is also satisfied that the visa applicants’ clothing needs are met substantially, if not wholly by the primary applicant.  The Tribunal is of the opinion this has been the case for a substantial period of time prior to the lodgement of the application and continues to the time of decision. 

32. In the Tribunal’s opinion the primary applicant, review applicant and the visa applicants are a close-knit family that has been separated by circumstance.  The Tribunal is satisfied, having taken into account both the primary applicant’s oral testimony as well as his significant corroborative documentary evidence, that he continues to wholly or substantially support the visa applicants financially for all their costs for the past almost two years they have been in Turkey.  The Tribunal, based upon the consistent testimony of the review applicant and all witnesses, is satisfied that prior to his departure for Australia he provided the same level of support to the visa applicants and did so for numerous years: certainly prior to the lodgement of this visa application.  The Tribunal acknowledges the corroborative evidence of finances being provided to the visa applicants from the time of application is not as strong and acknowledges the argument made by the primary applicant that these limitations are based upon the fact that they were simply living at his house in Yemen and he would supply them, as his children, with finances on an as needs basis.  The Tribunal acknowledges the evidence that has been supplied, such as a wide range of information from the University of Science and Technology in Yemen including the primary applicant’s health insurance card from six years ago that lists the visa applicants on the primary applicant’s health insurance (D1, Folio.193).  What is not in dispute is that the visa applicants were living in Yemen on dependent visas that prohibited them from seeking employment and acquiring some level of financial independence.  What is not in dispute is that they were undertaking tertiary studies at the university their father the primary applicant was a senior academic at and were residing with him in his university-provided accommodation.  It was up to the primary applicant (with the support of the review applicant) to provide for his children and supply the visa applicants with the financial support to meet their needs for food, clothing and shelter. The Tribunal is satisfied that he has done so for many years and continues to do so today.      

33. Having considered all the evidence and the matters contained in the delegate’s decision record, which the review applicant provided the Tribunal, the Tribunal is satisfied that the visa applicants are, and have been for a substantial period immediately before the time of application, substantially reliant upon the primary applicant for financial support to meet their basic costs of food, clothing and shelter; and that their reliance on the primary applicant is greater than any other reliance: as per Reg. 1.05A(1)(a)(i) and (ii). Therefore, the visa applicants also meet Reg. 1.12(1)(b).

34. Accordingly, the Tribunal is satisfied that each of the visa applicants was at the time of application, and remains at time of decision, a dependent child of the primary applicant: Reg. 1.05A. Further, the visa applicant also meets the definition of ‘a member of the family unit’ of the primary visa applicant: Reg. 1.12. Therefore, at the time of decision the visa applicants meet clauses 309.311 and 309.321 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations.

35. Oral testimony was provided by the review applicant that she also sometimes sends money to the visa applicants.  In the primary applicant’s written submission he said she sends about $250 per month to the visa applicants (T1, Folio.57).  The Tribunal notes that in some circumstances, it may be open to the Tribunal to make a factual finding that a person is “dependent” on the family head, notwithstanding that funds are being provided by the family head’s spouse.  In Al Naqi v Minister for Immigration & Anor [2007] FMCA 874 Riethmuller FM found that “broad, practical judgment” is required in assessing notions of dependence and support and that this will sometimes necessitate identification of the underlying source of support and the reasons for provision of that support.  His Honour took the view that “support for a person’s relatives, from their spouse, can be considered support by them if their spousal relationship is an essential or substantial part of the reason that the support is provided”.  In this case, the review applicant’s support for the visa applicants is related to her spousal relationship with the primary applicant.  The Tribunal accepts that any financial support the review applicant provides is on the basis of her spousal relationship with the primary applicant and the fact the visa applicants are also her own children.

1. The Tribunal considered the brief engagement and marriage of the visa applicant Ms Sara Ali Mahjoub in 2014 and whether that was indicative of a lack of dependency by Ms Mahjoub on the primary applicant.  The 16 month delay in joining the primary applicant’s application as a dependent has also been held as indicative of a lack of a dependency relationship.  The Tribunal accepts the oral testimony by Ms Mahjoub that she was very upset after the collapse of her marriage so soon and the infidelity of her former husband, leading to a situation where consideration of joining her father’s visa application was not a high priority.  The Tribunal also is prepared to accept that the parties were unaware that the Ms Mahjoub could be subsequently joined to the application until they received advice from their legal representative.  In the circumstances of this review Tribunal does not put any adverse weight on Ms Mahjoub’s delay as a secondary applicant in joining the primary applicant’s application.

2. The Tribunal furthermore is satisfied that Ms Mahjoub’s dependency on the primary applicant only shifted to her husband for a very short period of time. The visa applicant Ms Mahjoub was engaged in June 2013 and married in February 2014.  She divorced in June 2014 and immediately returned to Yemen and the primary applicant’s household.  The visa applicant said the primary applicant paid the fines to the Yemeni Government on behalf of the visa applicant Ms Mahjoub for returning to Yemen after the three month period of time for travel outside of Yemen had expired (T1, Folio.42).  The review applicant said the primary applicant paid the visa applicant’s airfares to return home.  The Tribunal has reviewed copies of Ms Mahjoub’s divorce certificate from the Iraqi courts dated 16 June 2014 (D1, Folio.118-119) and accepts the relationship and any dependency on her former husband had ceased.  The Tribunal is satisfied that the visa applicant Ms Mahjoub was dependent upon the primary applicant until her marriage in February 2014 and it resumed after she broke up from her husband a month or so later. The Tribunal acknowledges that the visa applicant Ms Mahjoub had to remain in Iraq to finalise the divorce until June 2014.  The Tribunal does not consider the visa applicant’s brief marriage in 2014 precludes her from making a valid claim as a dependent of the primary applicant. 

3. The Tribunal notes the claim in the delegate’s decision that the visa applicants ‘resided independently for a period of almost five (5) years whilst in education after which they claim to have moved to the same household as their father.’  Claims were made however in oral evidence by the review applicant that the visa applicants had also been living with their parents whilst studying (2006 to 2011).  The Tribunal notes their visa application forms that state they were living in accommodation at the university in Yemen at this time.  The Tribunal notes that the primary applicant was the Professor of Dentistry at the same university at this same time and was living in university provided accommodation.  The Tribunal considers it entirely plausible they were residing with their father during holidays and in student accommodation during term, particularly given their father was on campus. The Tribunal does not on the evidence before it consider any residency on campus by the visa applicants asserts a lack of dependency by them upon the primary applicant.  The visa applicants had no right to seek any sort of employment at this time.  They were living in Yemen as dependents of the primary applicant and were studying at the same university he was lecturing at.  The Tribunal considers on the evidence that they remained dependents during this period.  The Tribunal furthermore notes that it is agreed that in 2011 after graduation the visa applicants moved permanently to their father the primary applicant’s university-supplied residence.  The Tribunal notes that this is some three years prior to the lodgement of the visa application.  The Tribunal on the evidence considers the applicants were residing with the primary applicant and dependent upon him a substantial time before the lodgement of the visa application.          

4. The Tribunal notes in the delegate’s decision record refusing the visa he placed some weight on the visa applicants’ lack of employment, particularly given their age and their impressive educational qualifications.  The delegate found that ‘there is no evidence before me to suggest that secondary applicant 1 has been compelled or restricted to remaining in Yemen or is restricted from seeking employment outside of Yemen.’  He also wrote ‘The secondary applicants are both highly educated adults who, irrespective of their marital status or cultural norms are able to choose where they reside and whether they gain employment beyond their chosen residence in Yemen.  I do not accept that their claimed reliance is due to their inability to provide their own basic needs which would suggest that they lack the ability, means or power to do something according to the dictionary definition of the term’ and ‘cumulative consideration of the secondary applicants’ ages, education level and reasons for their current state of dependence is not attributed to their inability to provide for their own basic needs for food, clothing and shelter.’ (D1, Folio.237-238).  The applicant’s representative Mr Moyes submitted that this was an incorrect approach.  The Tribunal agrees with Mr Moyes’ submissions.  Following the Full Federal Court decision of Huynh v MIMIA [2006] FCAFC 122 the proper construction of ‘dependent’ under the current definition in r.1.05A does not carry any implication of the notion of necessity or lack of choice. Therefore, subject to the other requirements of the regulation, there is no need to prove more than reliance in fact. The Tribunal has sympathy for the view that the visa applicants have the ability to not be dependent upon the primary applicant. The visa applicants are highly educated and articulate individuals who, in the Tribunal’s opinion, would have little difficulty in finding employment and being able to rely upon their own abilities to support their need for food, clothing and shelter. That is not however the question before the Tribunal. The question before the Tribunal simply is whether the visa applicant is, as a matter of fact, relying on the primary applicant for support rather than having to (Tribunal’s emphasis added) rely upon them for support: Kauri Timber Co (Tas) Pty Ltd v Reeman [1973] HCA 8 128 CLR 177 The Tribunal on the evidence before it accepts that circumstances have created a situation whereby the visa applicants were at the time of application and at the time of decision wholly or substantially reliant upon the primary applicant for their food, clothing and shelter. The visa applicants had graduated by the time of application but were prohibited from working due to their Yemeni visas issued as dependents of the primary applicant. This led to them relying upon their father the primary applicant for food, shelter and clothing – and all other needs – across the period he was working as a Professor in Dentistry. Notwithstanding Ms Sara Ali Mahjoub’s brief marriage in 2014, the Tribunal accepts that they had no other source of income (other than their mother the review applicant). In 2017 their father departed for Australia whilst they travelled to Turkey via Iraq. The review applicant has provided a range of corroborative evidence to satisfy the Tribunal that since that time the primary applicant has continued to financially support the visa applicants for all their needs which includes food, clothing and shelter. The Tribunal notes their visas in Turkey (T1, Folio.39-41) preclude the visa applicants from working and at the time of decision they remain wholly or substantially reliant upon the primary applicant. The Tribunal accepts that they do not theoretically need to remain dependent. The Tribunal believes they could with their maturity and excellent academic qualifications return to Iraq and seek gainful, well-paid employment and become entirely independent. That is not however the question before the Tribunal. The question before the Tribunal is have the visa applicants been wholly or substantially reliant upon the primary applicant for a substantial period of time before the application was lodged and continue to be at the time of decision. The Tribunal considers they have been and continue to be.

5. Clause 309.311 is a time of application requirement for the granting of this visa.  The Tribunal is satisfied that at the time this visa application was lodged on 14 April 2014 and for a substantial period beforehand that the visa applicants were both wholly or substantially reliant on the primary applicant for financial support to meet their basic needs for food, clothing and shelter; and their reliance on the primary applicant was greater than any reliance on any other person or source of income for financial support to meet their basic needs for food, clothing and shelter: regulation 1.05A (1)(a)(i) and (ii).  Given the visa applicants at the time of application were dependent on the family head or resident in the family head’s household at, they meet regulation 1.12(1)(e).  As they meet regulation 1.12(1)(e) at the time of application, they meet the definition of a member of the family unit under regulation 1.12.  The visa applicants also meet the definition of dependent child under regulation 1.12(b) at the time of application.  As the visa applicants were members of the family unit of the primary applicant at the time of application, they meet cl 309.311. The Tribunal furthermore at the time of decision is satisfied that the visa applicants continue to be wholly or substantially reliant on the primary applicant for financial support to meet their basic needs for food, clothing and shelter; and their reliance on the primary applicant continues to be greater than any reliance on any other person or source of income for financial support to meet their basic needs for food, clothing and shelter.  As the visa applicants were members of the family unit of the primary applicant at the time of decision, they meet cl.309.321.    

6. 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.

   DECISION

7. The Tribunal remits the applications for Partner (Provisional) (Class UF) visas for reconsideration, with the direction that the 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 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations

   Justin Owen
   Senior Member