Chan (Migration)

Chan (Migration) [2019] AATA 4663 (17 October 2019)
DECISION RECORD
DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division
APPLICANT:  Ms Zi Yan Chan
CASE NUMBER:  1829110
HOME AFFAIRS REFERENCE(S):           CLF2013/269078
MEMBER:Hugh Sanderson
DATE:17 October 2019
PLACE OF DECISION:  Sydney
DECISION:The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicant a Partner (Temporary) (Class UK) visa.
Statement made on 17 October 2019 at 2:10pm

CATCHWORDS
MIGRATION – Partner (Temporary) (Class UK) visa – Subclass 820 (Partner) – Federal Court remittal – genuine spouse or de facto relationship – valid marriage – financial, household and social aspects of relationship – nature of commitment – credibility – inconsistent evidence – individual and joint bank accounts – unexplained financial transactions – residential and postal addresses – planned IVF treatment – sponsor’s multiple overseas travel without applicant – sponsor’s mental health – consultations undertaken and documents created to support application – no substantive visa held at time of application – no submissions on this issue – no compelling reasons to waive criterion – decision under review affirmed
LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss 5F, 65, 359AA
Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth), r 1.15A(3), Schedule 2, cls 820.211(2)(a), 802.211(2)(d), 820.221, Schedule 3, criterion 3001
CASE
He v MIBP [2017] FCAFC 206
STATEMENT OF DECISION AND REASONS
APPLICATION FOR REVIEW

This is an application for review of a decision made by a delegate of the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection to refuse to grant the applicant a Partner (Temporary) (Class UK) visa under s.65 of the Migration Act 1958 (the Act).
The applicant applied for the visa on 4 May 2015 on the basis of her relationship with her 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 (the Regulations).
The delegate refused to grant the visa on the basis that the visa applicant did not satisfy cl.820.211 because the delegate was not satisfied the applicant was the spouse, as defined in s.5F of the Act, of the sponsoring partner. The delegate also found that at the time of the application the applicant did not hold a substantive visa and did not satisfy criterion 3001 of the Schedule 3 criteria to the Regulations. Further, the delegate was not satisfied there were compelling reasons for not applying those criteria.
Background
The applicant is a citizen of Hong Kong and is currently 43 years old. She was previously married and divorced her husband in 2008. She has two children of that relationship, a son, Ka Ho Kwok currently 22 years old, and a daughter, Ho Yi Kwok currently 16 years old. They are not included in the application.
The applicant first entered Australia on 11 April 2012 holding a Subclass 976 Tourist visa. On 18 May 2012 she applied for a Student visa. Her Subclass 976 Tourist visa was cancelled on 28 June 2012 as the applicant was found to be in breach of condition 8101 that she not work in Australia. She has not held a substantive visa since that date. The Department refused the applicant’s Student visa application on 12 September 2012. The Tribunal (differently constituted) affirmed that decision on review on 7 February 2014.
The sponsor of the applicant is Martin Sultana. He was born in Australia and is an Australian citizen. He is currently 59 years old. He claims not to have been in a previous relationship with any other person.
The parties claimed they first met each other on 25 December 2012 and the relationship developed after that time. They were married on 17 April 2013.
The applicant provided a number of statements from friends stating they believe the relationship is genuine. Other documents provided in support of the application included bank statements, photos of the parties together, a rental agreement and a life insurance policy for the sponsor nominating the applicant as the beneficiary. The sponsor claimed that the applicant had been welcomed with open arms by his friends and family. He claimed that he had accepted her children as his own and they planned to travel to China for a holiday to visit the applicant’s relatives.
The applicant was invited to provide further information in support of the application, including any compelling reasons for not applying the Schedule 3 criteria. Further bank statements were provided.
The delegate who considered the application noted the following issues:
·The joint bank account showed limited transactions and there was no substantive information showing the parties had pooled their financial resources or had any shared assets or liabilities;
·Despite the parties providing a joint residential rental agreement for a property in Sydney, the sponsor’s tax returns were addressed to his home in Girraween indicating the parties were not living together;
·The statements provided in support of the application do not provide any convincing information as to why the parties’ friends consider the relationship genuine;
·The photos provided only limited information of any social activities of the parties;
·The insurance policy is of limited value and does not indicate any commitment to a relationship or each other; and
·There was little further indication the parties were committed to a long-term relationship with each other.
Taking these matters into account, the delegate was not satisfied the applicant was the spouse, as defined in s.5F of the Act, of the sponsoring partner. The delegate found the applicant did not meet the criteria in cl.820.211(2)(a).
The delegate then noted the applicant did not hold a substantive visa at the time of the application and did not meet criterion 3001 of the Schedule 3 criteria. The delegate then considered whether the applicant met the criteria in cl.820.211(2)(d). The delegate noted the applicant had been invited to provide submissions in respect of this issue, however, had not provided any compelling reasons for not applying the Schedule 3 criteria. The delegate found, therefore, that the applicant did not meet the criteria in cl.820.211(2)(d).
As the delegate found the applicant failed to meet the criteria in cl.820.211(2)(a) and cl.820.211(2)(d), the application was refused.
Information to the Tribunal
The applicant applied for a review of the Department’s decision before the Tribunal (differently constituted). The applicant provided further documents in support of the application including bank statements, and statements by the applicant and the sponsor. The sponsor claimed that he was in a “fragile state of mind” and receiving treatment for this. It was claimed they had recently consulted a doctor about fertility issues as they were trying to have a baby and had been told to return in a month to be referred to a fertility specialist. The Tribunal was not satisfied there were compelling reasons for not applying the Schedule 3 criteria and affirmed the Department’s decision on the basis that the applicant did not satisfy the criteria in cl.820.211(2)(d).
The applicant appealed the decision of the Tribunal. The Federal Court of Australia found jurisdictional error and remitted the matter to the Tribunal for reconsideration.
The movement records of the sponsor show that since first meeting the applicant he has travelled overseas as follows:
·From 2 November 2013 to 6 December 2013;
·From 28 December 2014 to 1 February 2015;
·From 17 October 2015 to 15 November 2015;
·From 6 April 2016 to 11 April 2016;
·From 26 December 2016 to 22 January 2017;
·From 28 October 2017 to 25 November 2017;
·From 26 December 2018 to 26 January 2019; and
·From 19 April 2019 to 4 May 2019.
The applicant provided further information to the Tribunal including the following:
·Photos of the parties together with friends and family;
·Report from Flora Truong, clinical and forensic psychologist dated 27 August 2019;
·Letter from Dr Leung confirming the applicant had an ultrasound on 7 September 2018 after having an irregular period;
·Pathology report dated 23 August 2019;
·Medical certificate dated 19 September 2019 from Dr Leung stating the applicant “and her partner is planning to start on IVF treatment shortly and is scheduling her orientation visit at IVF Australia”;
·Joint bank account statement;
·Will of the sponsor;
·Insurance certificates;
·Statements by friends in support of the application;
·Tax return of the applicant for the year ending June 2019;
·Statement by the sponsor; and
·Documents addressed to the applicant at the home in Girraween.
The applicant appeared before the Tribunal on 20 September 2019 to give evidence and present arguments. The Tribunal also received oral evidence from the sponsor and Jason Goh who had previously provided a statement. The Tribunal hearing was conducted with the assistance of an interpreter in the Mandarin and English languages. The applicant was represented by her registered migration agent who attended the hearing.
The Tribunal commenced the hearing by explaining the process under s.359AA of the Act. The Tribunal explained to the applicant it would be putting to her information which would be the reason, or a part of the reason, for affirming the decision under review. It would explain what the information was, why it was relevant, and then invite the applicant to comment on or respond to the information. If she required more time, she could request an adjournment.
Information of the applicant
The applicant said that she had been living with the sponsor in his house at Girraween for about six years. She said that she first moved into the house in January 2013 and had been living with the sponsor since then. She said that when her daughter was visiting Australia she stayed with them. She said when her son was studying in Australia he was living in a place in George Street, Sydney and sharing that place with a friend. She said that she visited her son in his home and would only very occasionally stay there overnight. She said that her husband never stayed in the George Street residence at all. She said that before she moved into the Girraween home of the sponsor she had been living in a place in Pitt Street, Sydney.
The applicant said that her children were both living in Hong Kong with their father. She said her son was working buying clothes and her daughter was finishing high school. She said that her daughter was planning to study dog grooming once she finished high school. She said that her former husband provides all food and shelter for the children but she has sent them AU$5,000. She said that she calls them at least every two weeks and that the sponsor would sometimes say “hello” to them but would not speak to them over the phone because their English was not good.
The Tribunal asked the applicant when the sponsor had last travelled out of Australia. She said that he had travelled to the Philippines in November 2018 for about a month. She said he returned before the end of December 2018. She said that for 2019 New Year’s Eve she and the sponsor went to a pub with friends for dinner but returned home before midnight.
The applicant said that the sponsor had travelled overseas on two or three occasions since their marriage. She said that he had travelled to the Philippines, Thailand and Indonesia. She said that she had asked him to go to the Philippines to have a rest. She then said that the sponsor had thought about doing business there. She said that the sponsor travelled by himself.
The applicant confirmed that since she had started her relationship with the sponsor he had travelled overseas on two or three occasions. She then changed this to say that he had travelled overseas on four occasions. She said that before they met each other the sponsor had travelled overseas.
The Tribunal referred to the process under s.359AA of the Act referred to above. The Tribunal referred to the sponsor’s movement records (set out above) which indicated that he had travelled overseas on eight occasions since the applicant claimed to have been in a relationship with him. The most recent occasion he had travelled overseas was in April 2019. He was overseas on 2019 New Year’s Eve when the applicant claimed that she went to a pub in Sydney with him with friends to celebrate the New Year. This was relevant as it indicated the applicant was not aware of the sponsor travelling overseas and indicated the parties were not living together. It indicated the sponsor was able to spend time away from the applicant and was not dependent upon her support. This indicated the parties were not in a genuine and continuing relationship and that there were compelling reasons for not applying the Schedule 3 criteria.
The applicant said that she knew that the sponsor had travelled to the Philippines probably every year. She said that he had a girlfriend in the Philippines. She said that he had told her before that he had a girlfriend in the Philippines, but now she did not know. She said the sponsor had told her that he was not going back there.
The Tribunal referred to the information from Dr Leung which indicated the applicant was now planning to do IVF. She said that they had not tried to do IVF before but they had spoken to their doctor who had said just to try normally. She said they did this about two or three years ago but she has not fallen pregnant. She said that about a month ago they were referred for IVF but could not see Dr Leung earlier because he was on holiday. She said that they had not tried IVF at any time before.
The Tribunal referred to the process under s.359AA of the Act referred to above. The Tribunal referred to the earlier hearing before the Tribunal. During that hearing, the applicant claimed that she had seen a doctor the day before the hearing about her fertility. She had claimed that she would be referred to a specialist after about a month for fertility issues. This was relevant as it indicated the applicant was only considering fertility issues immediately before a hearing before the Tribunal and did not indicate that the parties had taken any steps at any other time to address any concerns they may have about fertility or having a child together. This indicated the parties were generating evidence which is not a true reflection of the claimed relationship in order to support the application.
The applicant said that at the time she was not so well. She said she and the sponsor do want to have a baby but they thought that if she had to go back to Hong Kong for two years it would not be good.
The applicant said the sponsor had not seen any other psychiatrist apart from Ms Truong. She said that he had seen his general practitioner but had never been referred to a specialist for any counselling or treatment for any mental health issues.
The applicant provided a description of the sponsor’s work. She said that he does not take many sick days. She then said this was except from when he was mentally not well and he has high blood pressure. She said the last time he had a day off work was the Wednesday, two days before the hearing, when he was not feeling well because he was feeling dizzy. She said this was the time he went to see the doctor for IVF.
The applicant said the sponsor has two bank accounts, one in his sole name and a joint bank account with her. She said that he rarely uses the joint bank account because he forgot the password but she claimed he still uses it. She said that his pay goes into his bank account and he pays for expenses. She said that he sometimes transfers money into the joint bank account. The Tribunal asked the applicant to identify these transfers but she was not able to do so.
The Tribunal referred to certain unusual deposits into the joint bank account. The Tribunal noted one series of deposits totalling in excess of $15,000. The applicant said that she borrowed money from friends. She said that was how money was deposited by cash into this account. She said that the sponsor knows that she borrows money from friends, but does not know how much. Deposits made to an ATM in Kalgoorlie could not be explained.
The Tribunal noted the marriage certificate of the parties stated their place of residence for both the applicant and the sponsor was an address at Pitt Street, Sydney when the applicant was claiming that she was residing in the sponsor’s home at Girraween. The applicant said that she did not know why this was done. She said the agent must have done it.
The Tribunal noted the applicant had provided the Department with a rental agreement identifying the applicant and the sponsor as the joint tenants of the property at Pitt Street, Sydney dated 17 April 2013 when the applicant was claiming she was living with the sponsor in his house in Girraween. The applicant said that it was the agent who did this. The applicant confirmed that from January 2013 she had been living all the time with the sponsor in his home in Girraween.
The Tribunal referred to the process under s.359AA of the Act. The Tribunal referred to the evidence given by the applicant in the earlier Tribunal hearing. During that hearing, she claimed that up until 2014 she had been staying most of the time in a unit with her friends in Pitt Street. This was inconsistent with the information now being provided by the applicant. This undermined the credibility of the applicant and called into question whether the applicant was providing the Tribunal and the Department with truthful information or had ever lived together. This could lead the Tribunal to find the parties were never in a genuine relationship.
The applicant was not able to provide any response to this information.
The Tribunal referred to the joint bank account details provided by the applicant. This account provided an address for both the applicant and the sponsor at an address in George Street, Sydney. This indicated that the parties were not living together in the sponsor’s home in Girraween. The applicant claimed that this was the place where her son was living and it was more convenient for her things to be sent to that address than to where she was living with the sponsor in Girraween. The Tribunal indicated that it was not plausible that if they had been living in Girraween that it would be more convenient to send the bank statement to an address in George Street in the city. The applicant said that she did not think that it was important at the time.
The Tribunal referred to the joint bank account details the sponsor had provided to the Tribunal which showed the account was sent from November 2016 to January 2017 to an address in Willoughby. The applicant claimed this was a mistake and that she never lived there.
The Tribunal asked the applicant who Joe Nastasi is. She said that she had never heard of him. The Tribunal asked who Peter Wilson was. She said that she did not know. She then said that they were friends of the sponsor, but was not sure. She said that she did not know where Mr Nastasi lived but they went out for dinner in Sydney near to where he was living. She said that she had gone to Peter Wilson’s home on one occasion.
Information of the sponsor
The sponsor said that he had been living in his home in Girraween for about 14 years. He said the applicant moved into his home in January 2013 and she had not lived anywhere else since then. He said that the applicant’s son was living in a place in George Street and would sometimes stay with them on weekends. He said that the applicant’s children live in Hong Kong with their father. He said they were both students. He didn’t know what they were studying. He believed the applicant sends money to support her children, but could not provide the details.

The sponsor provided details of his travel overseas. He said that he travels regularly to the Philippines because he is looking at business opportunities there. He said that he was travelled by himself. He said that he used to have a girlfriend in the Philippines but not now. He said that whenever he travels to the Philippines he keeps in touch with the applicant regularly.
The sponsor provided details of his work. He said that he had been in the position for about 20 years and it was a responsible job. He claimed to be suffering from anxiety for the last four years. He said that he had to go to a clinic the day before the hearing to provide a semen sample and before that he had a day off work a week before on Wednesday.
The Tribunal noted that the parties had only taken steps in respect of fertility issues immediately before the hearing. This was identical to the previous hearing before the Tribunal where it had been claimed they were seeking professional help to have a child, but nothing was done after the Tribunal hearing. This indicated the claims that they were trying to have a child together through IVF were not genuine. The sponsor said that they do want a child but at their age it would be difficult. He said that they would see what happens.
The sponsor said that he has only seen his general practitioner with regard to any anxiety or depression issues. He said that his general practitioner had referred him to a psychologist about four or five years ago, but he had refused to go. He said that he had been taking medication, but has not taken any medication for the last two years. He said that he refuses to take any medication.
The sponsor provided details of the bank accounts he holds. He said that he has a bank account with the Commonwealth Bank in his sole name. His salary is paid into this account. He said that he sometimes transfers money into the joint bank account, but could not provide details of when this happened. The Tribunal referred to various deposits into the joint bank account. The sponsor was not able to provide an explanation of those deposits or how the applicant used the account. He said that he did not use the account.
The Tribunal referred to the joint bank account details and the fact that the address those accounts were sent to up to September 2016 was an address in George Street, Sydney and from November 2016 to January 2017 an address in Willoughby. The sponsor said that he was not too sure why this was done.
The Tribunal referred to the parties’ marriage certificate which states the place of residence of both the applicant and the sponsor was an address in Pitt Street, Sydney. The sponsor said the details of the marriage certificate were wrong.
The Tribunal referred to the rental agreement provided by the applicant to the Department. This indicated that the applicant and the sponsor were the joint tenants of a residence in Pitt Street, Sydney and entered that agreement on 17 April 2013. The sponsor said that he had never seen it and could not explain that document.
The sponsor said that he did not want to lose the applicant and there was a lot of turmoil in Hong Kong.
Information of Jason Goh
Mr Goh stated that he had known the applicant and the sponsor for seven years and he believed their relationship was genuine. He said that he regularly travels from Melbourne to Sydney and spends time with the parties. He said that he was a good friend of the sponsor.
Mr Goh said the sponsor was trying to set up a business in the Philippines. He said the sponsor was not very socially active although he liked sports. He said that although he did not have any qualifications to make any assessment, he said that he was worried about the mental health of the sponsor as he could see a massive deterioration in his mental health. He said that he did not want to see the sponsor get to a point where he would have to do something for him. He said that he had asked him to go and see someone but it was not something the sponsor wanted to do. He said that he knew how important it was for the applicant to be with him.
Further information
The Tribunal again referred to the process under s.359AA of the Act. The Tribunal referred to the information provided by the sponsor which was that the applicant’s children were both students. This was inconsistent with the information provided by the applicant which was that her son was working. This indicated the sponsor was not aware of significant issues in the applicant’s life which indicated they did not provide each other the degree of communication and emotional support which would be expected in a genuine relationship.
The applicant said that she could not comment.
The Tribunal referred to the information provided by the applicant which was that he was travelling to the Philippines to investigate a business opportunity. This was inconsistent with the information provided by the applicant which was that he had travelled to the Philippines for a rest at her suggestion. This indicated the applicant was not aware of significant issues in the sponsor’s life which indicated they did not provide each other the degree of communication and emotional support which would be expected in a genuine relationship.
The applicant said that she could not comment.
The applicant provided a further statement to the Tribunal after the hearing in response to the matters raised by the Tribunal during the hearing. In the statement the following was claimed:
·The applicant was aware of the sponsors overseas travel, but it was just due to the fact that she was extremely nervous that it appeared that she did not know about the sponsors overseas movements;
·They had celebrated New Year’s Eve in advance of the sponsor’s travels;
·It has been an extremely stressful seven years because the applicant cannot travel overseas with the sponsor to see her children in Hong Kong and they are so co-dependent upon each other they cannot consider being separated;
·The parties had been planning to have a child together, but the uncertainty of whether the applicant would be granted a visa has stopped them following through with these plans but with IVF they will freeze the sponsor’s sperm providing them the flexibility of conceiving a child, depending on whether the visa is granted;
·The Pitt Street property was where the applicant first stayed in Australia and the high level of anxiety and stress meant that the applicant may have given incorrect information, but she has not lived there for over six years;
·The fact that the marriage certificate said both the applicant and sponsor were living at the Pitt Street address was a mistake by their agent;
·As the visa process has been very expensive and the applicant has been supported at all times by the sponsor, the applicant borrowed money from friends without telling the sponsor so that it would not be a burden on him;
·The applicant does know who Mr Nastasi and Mr Wilson are, she just froze due to the stress of the hearing and her level of English comprehension was affected;
·The bank statements being sent to Willoughby was an error as they nominated a friend who works in the financial industry to assist them and the bank mistakenly sent the mail to them;
·Mail was sent to the George Street address as that was where the applicant’s son was living and they were planning to do a trip around Australia and redirected the mail there for a short period;
·The sponsor does know that the applicant’s son is doing some small business but has always encouraged him to study and is insistent that he continue his study which was why he said he was a student;
·The sponsor is going to the Philippines to explore business opportunities, but as the applicant is worried about his health, she encourages him to rest there; and
·The applicant is aware of the sponsor’s overseas travel, but was not able to articulate this at the hearing.
For the following reasons, the Tribunal has concluded that the decision under review should be affirmed.
CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE
The issue in the present case is whether the applicant is the spouse, as defined in s.5F of the Act, of the sponsoring partner. Another issue is whether there are compelling reasons for not applying the Schedule 3 criteria.
Whether the parties are in a spouse or de facto relationship
Clauses 820.211(2)(a) and 820.221 require that at the time the visa application was made, and at the time of this decision, the applicant is the spouse or de facto partner of an Australian citizen or Australian permanent resident or an eligible New Zealand citizen. In the present case the applicant claims to be the spouse of the sponsor who is an Australian citizen.
‘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 r.1.15A(3) of the Regulations, which is extracted in the attachment to this decision. Each of the specific matters contained in r.1.15A(3) are effectively questions which must be answered: He v MIBP [2017] FCAFC 206.
Are the parties validly married?
If the parties are validly married, they may meet the requirements of a married relationship, but not a de facto relationship. The parties were married on 17 April 2013. There is nothing to indicate that the marriage between the parties is not valid. On the evidence, 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?
Financial aspects
The applicant provided a number of documents to support the claim that the parties have shared financial affairs. This included providing joint car insurance details, the will of the sponsor, the tax return of the sponsor identifying the applicant as his spouse, and a life policy on the applicant’s life. They also provided a number of statements from their joint bank account.
The parties provided evidence that the sponsor does not use the joint bank account. His income is paid into an account in his sole name and, on the evidence of the applicant, the sponsor does not use the joint bank account because he has forgotten the password. The parties claimed that the sponsor transfers money into the joint bank account from his sole account, however, they were unable to identify any occasions this has occurred.
The joint bank account statements showed multiple unusual transactions. An example of this are two deposits made on 15 August 2018 at a National Australia Bank (NAB) ATM at Chatswood at 17:06hrs and 17:10hrs in the sums of $2,700 and $2,800. This was followed on 27 August 2018 at the NAB ATM at Hurstville at 18:17hrs and 18:19hrs in the sums of $2,500 and $2,700. Other large cash deposits are shown in the joint bank account. This includes on 13 March 2019, 12 November 2018, 6 August 2018, 2 July 2018, and 8 February 2018. A series of ATM cash deposits in Kalgoorlie in 2016 could also not be explained.
The sponsor was unable to provide any explanation as to why these deposits would have been made. The applicant claimed that she had borrowed money from friends and she did not want to tell the sponsor about it. The Tribunal does not accept that if the parties were aware of each other’s financial affairs that the applicant would not have discussed with the sponsor the financial arrangements she was making to borrow money. The Tribunal does not accept that the joint bank account that was opened by the parties indicates that they are pooling their financial resources or sharing the day-to-day household expenses. Contrary to this, it indicates the parties have separate financial arrangements and are not aware of each other’s financial situation.
Over the course of the operation of the joint bank account, the address where the statements had been sent has also changed. This is discussed below when considering whether the parties have each shared household responsibilities. The fact that the account statements had been sent to addresses other than where the sponsor has been living further indicates that the sponsor has had no input or involvement in the joint bank account and that the opening of the joint bank account appears to have simply been made to support the claim that the parties were pooling their financial resources but is not, in fact, a true reflection of the parties living together or pooling their financial resources.
The parties took out a Real Family Life Cover from Real Insurance on 5 May 2015. The sponsor is identified as the policy owner with the account holders being identified as the sponsor and the applicant. The payments for the policy are automatically deducted from the joint bank account. As the sponsor makes no contribution to the joint bank account and appears unaware of how the applicant uses that account, the Tribunal does not accept that the taking out of an insurance policy on the life of the sponsor which is being paid for by the applicant indicates the parties are sharing expenses or combining their financial affairs. It is more likely that the insurance has been taken out to generate a document which is not a true reflection of any financial arrangements of the parties.
The sponsor has also nominated the applicant as the beneficiary of any life benefit under his superannuation fund. The document provided is dated 2019 and there is no information as to when this nomination occurred or if it is continuing.
The sponsor provided a copy of the certificate of insurance in the joint names of the parties for her motor vehicle. The policy indicates the sponsor has three other policies for home contents and for a different motor vehicle. Details of these policies were not provided.
It was claimed that the parties went shopping together and shared the expenses for the household. Apart from the statements of the parties, there is little evidence to support this. In a statement from the sponsor provided by the applicant to the Tribunal he claimed that he takes care of financial aspects including the shopping. The only documents provided as to the financial position of the parties was the joint bank account which the Tribunal finds the sponsor does not contribute to or have any knowledge of. The parties did not provide details of the sponsor’s bank account which, if they did, would be able to corroborate any claim that he is meeting the expenses for the parties.
For a period of time, the statements for the joint bank account were sent to an address in Willoughby. During the hearing, the applicant was unable to explain why the statements would have been sent to this address if the parties were claiming they were living in the sponsor’s home in Girraween. In the statement provided after the hearing, the applicant claimed that they nominated their friend who works in the financial industry to be able to assist them about their financial position and, by mistake, the accounts were sent there. If the parties, as is now claimed, were obtaining the assistance of a friend who works in the financial industry it would be expected that the parties would have been aware of this and provided appropriate information of the advice that was given and also details of other documents of the sponsor that were provided to that friend. No information has been provided which would indicate the sponsor provided any of his information or was involved in or received any financial advice from this friend.
Overall, there is little information which would indicate the financial aspects of the relationship support a finding that the parties are in a genuine and continuing relationship. The Tribunal places some weight on the documents provided, however, there are significant concerns as to whether these documents have been generated for the purposes of the visa application and are not a true reflection of any claimed relationship. The joint bank account details do not support a finding that the parties are pooling their financial resources or sharing the day-to-day household expenses. The evidence of the parties does not support a finding that the parties are aware of each other’s financial circumstances or their individual financial arrangements.
Household
The parties claim that they have been living together in the sponsor’s home at Girraween since January 2013, before they were married on 17 April 2013. This property has been owned by the sponsor since before they first met. Various documents have been provided addressed to both the applicant and the sponsor at that home. The fact that the applicant has advised various authorities, including the Roads and Maritime Services for the registration of her car and obtaining her driver’s license, that she is living at that address does not necessarily mean that these independent authorities have confirmed that she is living with the sponsor in his home.
The documents provided by the applicant did not consistently show that the parties have been living together in the sponsor’s home in Girraween. As indicated above, the parties opened a joint bank account, however, this account has only been operated by the applicant and the sponsor has not used that account. The statements for that account provided by the applicant show that they were originally sent to an address at Pitt Street where the applicant claimed she was living prior to moving to live with the sponsor. Over another period from at least 7 August 2015 to 6 September 2016, the statement is sent to an address in George Street. As indicated above, over another period the statement is addressed to a property in Willoughby.
At the hearing, the applicant claimed the George Street address was given because it was more convenient for her to have the statement sent to that address. The applicant claimed in her statement after the hearing that she redirected the account the George Street property because she and the sponsor were planning an extended holiday in Australia. No information has been provided which would indicate the parties have ever had or ever planned an extended holiday together in Australia or anywhere else. The Tribunal does not accept that if the parties were going on an extended holiday the applicant would have arranged for the bank statements to be sent to a different address and not simply redirected all mail sent to her son’s address. There is no information which would indicate that the sponsor made any arrangements to redirect his bank statements or any other documentation to the address in George Street. That the joint bank account statements were sent to the address in George Street indicates the sponsor was not living with the applicant in his home in Girraween.
The circumstances of the bank statement is being sent to Willoughby has been discussed above. At least two statements were sent to the Willoughby address on 4 November 2016 and 6 January 2017. If, as was claimed by the applicant, that this was simply a mistake and that the documents were being sent to a friend who was giving the parties financial advice, it would be expected that the “mistake” would be rectified after the first statement was sent to the incorrect address. That it was not indicates that the statements were being sent to the correct address and the applicant was not living with the sponsor in his home in Girraween.

The evidence the applicant gave at the hearing was that she had been living in the home of the sponsor since they were married. She claimed that she started living in the home in January 2013, prior to their marriage, and had been living there since. She claimed that when her son was studying in Australia that she would occasionally visit him and stay overnight, but this would be infrequent. This is not consistent with the information provided by the applicant in the original Tribunal hearing. In that hearing, she claimed that she had been staying primarily in the unit in in Pitt Street up until 2014. She could not provide any explanation for this inconsistent information. In her statement provided after the hearing, she repeated her claim that she has been living with the sponsor in Girraween since January 2013.
When the visa application was filed in October 2013, the applicant provided on multiple occasions information which claimed that she was living in Pitt Street. In the application itself she states that her residential address is the home in Pitt Street. She does not provide the sponsor’s residential address in that application which she is only required to do if it is different to the applicant’s residential address. The marriage certificate dated 17 April 2013 states that the place of residence of both the applicant and the sponsor is the address provided by the applicant in Pitt Street. A rental agreement was provided purportedly from the landlord and the applicant and the sponsor to rent the property at Pitt Street for the period from 17 April 2013 to 17 April 2014. Although this document is not signed by the sponsor, the signature of the applicant is provided.
The applicant claimed that these mistakes were all by her agent. She claimed that it was her agent who provided the information that she and the sponsor were living in Pitt Street in the marriage certificate and also in the application. The Tribunal does not accept this. There is no reason why the agent would have been involved in the arrangements for the parties wedding. The applicant’s signature is on the rental agreement for the Pitt Street property even though that purported rental agreement was made three months after the applicant claimed she was living with the sponsor in his home in Girraween.
All this information undermines the credibility of the applicant. It also undermines the claims that the parties have been living together since January 2013 or that they were living together at the time of the application. As this information is in direct contradiction to the information now being provided by the applicant, it undermines the claims the parties have ever lived together in a shared household.
When questioned about the sponsor’s overseas travel, the applicant said he had travelled overseas on two or three occasions over the course of their relationship. When questioned further about this, she said that he had travelled overseas on four occasions. She said the last time he had travelled overseas was in November 2018 for about a month. This information is not correct. Since they were married, the applicant has travelled overseas on eight occasions. The last time he travelled overseas was on 19 April 2019, returning on 4 May 2019.
When questioned as to what the parties did on New Year’s Eve 2019, the applicant claimed that she and the sponsor went to a pub with friends but came home before midnight. The sponsor departed Australia on 26 December 2018 and did not return until 26 January 2019. It is not possible that the applicant and the sponsor were together on New Year’s Eve 2019. The fact that the applicant provided this information undermines her credibility and the claims that she has been making in respect of this application.
The fact that the applicant was not aware that the applicant had travelled overseas on eight occasions over the course of their relationship, and in particular that he had travelled overseas on 26 December 2018 and 19 April 2019 indicates the parties are not living together and are not aware of significant issues in their lives. It indicates that they do not have any dependence upon each other. The Tribunal does not accept that the failure of the applicant to remember the sponsor travelling overseas as regularly as he has, and in particular on the last occasion which was only four months prior to the hearing and over the period where the applicant provided a narrative of what they did on New Year’s Eve 2019 can be explained simply by being nervous during the hearing. The fact that the applicant provided a narrative of the applicant and sponsor celebrating New Year’s Eve 2019 with friends indicates the applicant has been willing to provide false information to the Tribunal in order to support her application. It is not a case of the applicant simply being so nervous that she forgot the sponsor was overseas at that time. The Tribunal does not accept that this was simply a mistake of memory or that the parties “spent New Year 2019 in advance of (the sponsor’s) travels”.
The parties have provided claims as to the arrangements they have in their household, including who does the cooking, cleaning and other household chores. They have provided various documents addressed to themselves at the sponsor’s home and statements from friends claiming that they have visited them there. This is in direct contradiction to the information which has been provided by the applicant previously and documentation which shows the applicant was not living with the sponsor in his home. Most significantly, the fact that the applicant was not aware of the extent of the sponsor’s overseas travel indicates the parties have not been living together in the sponsor’s home and they have not established a household together. This indicates the parties do not live together in a genuine and continuing relationship or have a mutual commitment to a shared life as husband and wife to the exclusion of all others.
Social aspects
The applicant provided a number of photos of the parties together including having 2018 Christmas dinner with friends and the children of the applicant. Photos were also taken of the applicant with members of the sponsor’s family. Statements were provided by friends claiming that they believe the relationship was genuine. A friend, Mr Goh, gave evidence at the hearing.
A statement was provided from Peter Wilson dated 18 August 2013 who claimed that they to dinners, go to the movies and other social activities together and enjoy being in their company. A further statement was given in 2015 claiming that he and his wife regularly attend social gatherings with the applicant and the sponsor such as Chinese New Year, concerts and dinners. When the applicant was initially asked who Peter Wilson was, she did not know. She then said he was a friend of the sponsor, but was not sure. After the hearing, she claimed that she did know who the people who claimed they were friends of the applicant and sponsor were, but she was stressed during the hearing and simply froze.
The Tribunal does not accept that if Peter Wilson and his wife were good friends of the applicant and the sponsor and regularly went out with them over at least a two year period that the applicant would not immediately know who they were. The Tribunal does not accept the information provided by Mr Wilson is correct or that he has any knowledge of the claimed relationship between the applicant and the sponsor. That Mr Wilson was willing to provide statements on two occasions and the applicant provided those statements in support of the application indicates the applicant has been willing to provide false information to the Department and has arranged with third parties to provide false information in support of her application.
A statement was provided by Mr Nastasi dated 20 October 2013. He claimed that when he met the sponsor she greeted him with open arms and she went out of her way to make him feel at home. When the Tribunal asked the applicant who Mr Nastasi was, she said that she had never heard of him. She then claimed that he was a friend of the sponsor and that they had gone out to dinner with him and knew where he was living in Sydney. Mr Nastasi lives in Darwin. Again, as the applicant was unable to identify who Mr Nastasi was, the Tribunal places no weight on his claim that he believes the parties are in a genuine relationship. The fact that the applicant did not know that Mr Nastasi lives in Darwin indicates that she has no knowledge or relationship with him or he with her. It indicates that the applicant has arranged for Mr Nastasi to provide information in support of the application which is not a genuine reflection of any relationship the applicant has with the sponsor.
The Tribunal acknowledges other statements have been provided by friends to support the application. In particular, the Tribunal takes into account the evidence given by Mr Goh at the hearing. The Tribunal places some weight on that evidence as it appeared Mr Goh does spend time with both the applicant and the sponsor when he is visiting Sydney from Melbourne. This does not, however, overcome the significant concerns the Tribunal has as to whether the parties represent themselves as being in a married relationship.
As indicated above, the sponsor has travelled overseas, primarily to the Philippines, numerous times over the course of the relationship and the applicant appears to have been unaware of these trips. During the hearing, she said that the sponsor had said that he had previously had a girlfriend in the Philippines, but now she did not know.
The fact that the applicant was unaware of many of the overseas trips the applicant has made to the Philippines indicates that the parties do not represent themselves as being married to each other. The fact that the applicant is not sure if the sponsor has a girlfriend in the Philippines at this time also indicates that they do not represent themselves as being married.
Although evidence has been provided by the applicant to support the social aspects of the relationship, the Tribunal has concerns as to the genuineness of that information and in particular for the reasons set out above the credibility of statements from friends supporting the application. Although photos have been provided of the parties together at certain functions, there is no information which would indicate the parties have travelled together out of Sydney or participated in any other social events. Overall, there is limited credible information which would indicate the parties represent themselves as being married to each other and participate in social activities which would indicate they are in a genuine and continuing relationship.
Commitment
The parties claim to have first met each other on 25 December 2012 and started living together in the sponsor’s home in Girraween in January 2013. They were married and have now been married for over six years. As indicated above, the Tribunal does not accept the parties have been living together in a shared household over that time.
The applicant provided a report from Flora Truong, psychologist, to assess the sponsor’s mental health with a specific focus on the impact of his mental health should the applicant be removed from Australia. The report was completed after Ms Truong saw the applicant and the sponsor on 15 August 2019, a month before the hearing before the Tribunal. Apart from a letter of instruction from the applicant’s agent, which was not provided with the report, no other information was referred to by Ms Truong.
Ms Truong appears to have accepted uncritically the claims made by the applicant and the sponsor as to their claimed relationship and the expressed concerns for the sponsor’s mental health and dependence upon the applicant. She has accepted the claims made by the applicant and the sponsor to conclude that they are a genuine couple who are co-dependent on each other. She recommended the sponsor commence psychological treatment with a clinical psychologist for treatment of his mental health condition. The claims made that the sponsor was suffering from mental health issues surrounding his dependence upon the applicant were raised previously before the Tribunal.
There is no information that the sponsor has ever required a course of treatment as a result of any mental health issues or the fact that he is dependent upon the applicant. There is no information that despite the recommendations made by Ms Truong that the sponsor has followed those recommendations or sought any mental health treatment. Both the applicant and the sponsor provided information which indicated the applicant does not take many sick days which would be expected if he was suffering the mental health condition that is described by Ms Truong. The applicant has been in a responsible position in his employment for 20 years. He claimed that he was last suffering from anxiety four years prior to the hearing. He claimed that he did not want to take any medication which was why he had not followed through any recommendations for treatment.
The Tribunal places little weight on the report from Ms Truong as indicating the parties have any commitment to a relationship or that they are in a genuine and continuing relationship. Ms Truong accepts uncritically the information provided by the applicant and the sponsor. The recommendations made by Ms Truong for the sponsor to get treatment have not been followed through by the sponsor and there is no indication that he has suffered any mental health issue from which he gets emotional support from the applicant.
The parties claim they want to have a child together and as a result have considered IVF. The Tribunal does not accept this. The first time the applicant raised the issue that she was planning to have fertility treatment was immediately before the previous Tribunal hearing. She claimed to have consulted her doctor about fertility issues the day before the hearing. The parties appear to have done nothing after that to follow through any IVF treatment or any other fertility issues.

100. The next time the applicant raised the claim that they are attempting IVF is in August 2019, two years after the previous Tribunal hearing. In a statement provided by the applicant, she claims that they want to have a child and have been trying for a child for a while now. She claims that they have consulted doctors but have simply been advised to keep trying frequently to increase their chances of conception.
101. Apart from the evidence that indicated enquiries had been made immediately before the most recent hearing before the Tribunal, there is no information which would indicate the parties have taken any practical steps to conceive a child or make enquiries as to why, after seven years, they have not been able to do so naturally. The fact that claims are made that the parties were seeing a doctor about fertility issues and are considering having a child through IVF immediately before hearings before the Tribunal indicates those claims have only been made to support the application and not a genuine reflection of any wish of the parties to have a child together.
102. In the statement provided by the applicant after the hearing, the applicant claimed that although they wanted to have a child together, they have not done so because of the uncertainty of the applicant not having a visa to reside in Australia. If this is so, then there would be no reason why the applicant would have made enquiries about IVF at all in Australia. The applicant explains this by saying that with IVF they would be able to freeze the sponsor’s sperm which would provide them with flexibility of conceiving a child depending on the decision of the Tribunal. Again, this is not a rational explanation. If the sponsor has viable sperm to conceive a child there would be no need to freeze sperm in anticipation of undergoing IVF treatment later. The primary issue will be the fertility of the female applicant as she grows older and not the male sponsor and his capacity to produce sperm. That such a claim is made further undermines the claim that they have been making genuine enquiries about IVF or fertility issues. The Tribunal has significant concerns that the information provided as to commencing IVF treatment and concerns as to fertility issues have been generated by the applicant specifically to support the visa application and are not a genuine reflection of any claimed relationship or commitment to the parties future.
103. The sponsor believed that both the applicant’s children were students in Hong Kong. This is not correct. The applicant gave evidence that her son was now working. The sponsor explained this inconsistency by claiming that her son was only doing “some small business but it is not a serious business”. She claimed the sponsor always wanted her son to study which was why he believed he was still a student. The Tribunal does not accept this. The applicant gave no indication at the hearing before the Tribunal that her son was doing anything other than paid employment. The Tribunal does not accept that if the parties were communicating with each other and provided the degree of companionship and emotional support which would be expected in a genuine relationship that the sponsor would not know the circumstances of both the applicant’s children. The Tribunal does not accept the sponsor is aware of the circumstances of the applicant’s children indicating the parties do not provide companionship and emotional support to each other.
104. As indicated above, the applicant was unaware of the amount of international travel the sponsor has done over the course of their claimed relationship. The applicant believed the sponsor had travelled to the Philippines between two and four occasions over the course of their relationship. She indicated that the sponsor had previously had a girlfriend in the Philippines, but now she was not sure if he did or not. The fact that the applicant was not aware of the extent of the sponsor’s travel to the Philippines and in particular his last two trips there in December 2018 and April 2019 indicates the parties do not provide the degree of companionship and emotional support which would be expected in a genuine and continuing relationship. The concerns the applicant expressed that the sponsor may continue to have a girlfriend in the Philippines also indicates they do not have a mutual commitment to a shared life as husband and wife to the exclusion of all others.
105. It was claimed the sponsor had business interests in the Philippines. This was also stated by Mr Goh at the hearing. Apart from the claims made by the parties and Mr Goh, there is nothing to indicate that the sponsor has any business interests in the Philippines or is involved in the development of any business in the Philippines. At the hearing, the applicant said the sponsor had told her that he was not going back to the Philippines. This does not indicate that he has any continuing business interest there or has been involved in any business in the past.
106. The applicant has provided various documents to support her claim that she and the sponsor are in a committed relationship. This includes the sponsor preparing a will in the applicant’s favour, life insurance and superannuation benefits designed to benefit the applicant, and declaring her on his tax returns. The Tribunal has significant concerns that the information provided to support the visa application is not a genuine reflection of any claimed relationship or commitment to the parties’ future.
107. Overall, there is limited credible information which would indicate the parties are committed to each other to such an extent that their relationship is genuine and continuing and they have a mutual commitment to a shared life as husband and wife to the exclusion of all others.
Other considerations
108. The applicant claimed that the inconsistent information provided by her during the Tribunal hearing and her lack of knowledge of aspects of their claimed relationship were due to the fact that she was extremely nervous and the answers to questions were made under a high level of anxiety and stress. The Tribunal does not accept that the significant inconsistencies and lack of knowledge of aspects of the claimed relationship can simply be attributed to the applicant being under stress.

109. The Tribunal accepts that having to appear before the Tribunal at a hearing is a stressful process for most people. The Tribunal accepts that no person’s memory is infallible and no person can recall all events in their lives. The Tribunal does not accept, however, that the significant inconsistencies in the evidence given by the applicant can be ascribed to stress or failure of memory.
110. The report from Ms Truong stated that the applicant’s memory was normal and she had good insight. There was no obvious sign of mood, cognitive or neuropsychological disturbance. The Tribunal does not accept that if this is the assessment of the applicant when being interviewed by Ms Truong that applicant would not continue to be able to recall events correctly. The only difference between the interview of Ms Truong and the hearing before the Tribunal was that the Tribunal was challenging the information being put by the applicant with contradictory information.
111. There were significant areas where the applicant’s information was not consistent with independent information. Most particularly, this related to the sponsor’s movement records. The applicant believed the last time the sponsor had travelled overseas was in November 2018 and he had returned before the end of December. The Tribunal does not accept that a simple lapse of memory or anxiety would mean that the applicant would forget two further occasions where the sponsor had travelled overseas in the nine months prior to the hearing.
112. The applicant provided a detailed narrative of the events that she claimed happened on New Year’s Eve 2019 with the sponsor. The Tribunal does not accept that she would have provided such a detailed narrative if she had simply frozen under the stress of appearing before the Tribunal. The Tribunal does not accept that the manner of questioning of the applicant was in such a manner that she would not have been able to clearly articulate all the information she wished to provide to the Tribunal. The applicant was represented by her registered migration agent throughout the hearing and at no stage was any issue raised about the nature of the questions put to the applicant. The fact that the applicant provided a narrative claiming to have gone out with the sponsor and friends to a pub for New Year’s Eve 2019 indicates a willingness to provide false information to support the application.
113. As indicated above, the Tribunal finds the applicant has been willing to provide false information to the Tribunal and to the Department in order to support her visa application and are not a true reflection of any claimed relationship. The claim she made in her application was that the applicant and the sponsor were living together in the home she had been living in in Pitt Street. The same claim is made on the sponsorship documents signed by the sponsor. The marriage certificate provides the place of residence of both parties as the Pitt Street residence. The rental agreement is provided in the joint names of the parties, signed by the applicant, to rent Pitt Street premises for the period from 17 April 2013 to 17 April 2014. The applicant acknowledged that all the information and the documents are incorrect. She blames her agent for providing the incorrect information.
114. The Tribunal does not accept that the applicant would not have been aware that she was making a claim that she and the sponsor were living together in the Pitt Street residence and that this information was not correct. There is no reason why the applicant’s agent would have been involved in the arrangements with the marriage celebrant to state that the parties were living together in the Pitt Street residence if the relationship was genuine.
115. All these documents indicate that the applicant has been willing to provide false information to the Department and to the Tribunal to support her application which is not a true reflection of any claimed relationship.
116. The Tribunal has considered all the circumstances of the parties and all information provided to the Department and to the Tribunal both individually and collectively. Although there has been significant information provided in support of the application, including statements by friends, the Tribunal has significant concerns as to the bona fides of the documents provided and statements by friends. Against this there is considerable evidence which indicates the parties are not living together. This includes the fact that the applicant was not aware of the sponsor’s overseas travel, the fact that the joint bank account statements have been sent to addresses other than where the sponsor resides and that he has no dealings with the joint bank account, the lack of knowledge of the sponsor of the applicant’s financial arrangements, the lack of knowledge by the sponsor of the work of the applicant’s son, and the inconsistent information provided during the hearing.
117. After weighing all the evidence, the Tribunal is not satisfied that at the time of the application and at the time of this decision the parties live together or that they are in a genuine and continuing relationship. The Tribunal is not satisfied that the parties have a mutual commitment to a shared life as husband and wife to the exclusion of all others. On the basis of the above the Tribunal is not satisfied that the requirements of s.5F(2) are met at the time the visa application was made and at the time of this decision.
118. Therefore the applicant does not meet cl.820.211(2)(a) and cl.820.221. As the Tribunal has concluded these criteria are not met, it is not necessary to consider whether the applicant meets the criteria in cl.820.211(2)(d).
119. For the reasons above, the applicant does not satisfy the criteria for the grant of the visa.
DECISION
120. The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicant a Partner (Temporary) (Class UK) visa.
Hugh Sanderson
Member
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).

[2019] AATA 4663

17 October 2019

Key Legal Topics

Areas of Law

Immigration

Administrative Law

Statutory Interpretation

Legal Concepts

Judicial Review

Procedural Fairness

Statutory Construction

Jurisdiction