Jagdam (Migration) - [2025] ARTA 847

JAGDAM (MIGRATION) [2025] ARTA 847 (4 APRIL 2025)
DECISION AND
REASONS FOR DECISION
Applicant:Mr Vamshi Krishna Jagdam
Respondent:  Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs
Tribunal Number:  2113363

Tribunal:General Member J Owen
Place:Sydney
Date: 4 April 2025
Decision:The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicant a Partner (Temporary) (Class UK) visa.
I, General Member J Owen certify that this is the
Tribunal's statement of decision and reasons
Statement made on 04 April 2025 at 12.48pm

CATCHWORDS
MIGRATION – Partner (Temporary) (Class UK) visa – Subclass 820 – applicant supplied ‘information that is false or misleading in a material particular’ to the Department – no compelling reasons that affect the interests of Australia – PIC 4020(1) requirements should be waived – the relationship and the Partner visa application was contrived for migration purposes – decision under review affirmed
LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss 5, 65, 240, 359, 375
Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth), Schedule 2, cls 820.211, 820.221, 820.226
CASES
Arora v MIBP [2016] FCAFC 35
Batra v MIAC [2013] FCA 274
Kaur v MIBP [2017] FCAFC 184
Trivedi v MIBP [2014] FCAFC 42
Wu v MICMSMA [2021] FCCA 1091

STATEMENT OF REASONS
APPLICATION FOR REVIEW

This is an application for review of a decision made by a delegate of the Minister on 15 September 2021 to refuse to grant the applicant a Partner (Temporary) (Class UK) visa under s 65 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (the Act).
The applicant is a 35-year-old male Indian national. The applicant applied for the visa on 17 July 2019. The delegate refused to grant the visa on the basis that the applicant did not satisfy the requirements of cl 820.226 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth) (the Regulations) because the applicant did not satisfy Public Interest Criteria (PIC) 4020(1).
PIC 4020 (1) requires that there is no evidence before the Minister that the applicant has given, or caused to be given, to the Minister or other officer bogus or information that is false and misleading in a material particular in relation to the current application or a visa that the applicant held in the period 12 months before the application was made. The evidence before the delegate was the applicant had provided false or misleading information, or bogus documentation in his Partner (Temporary) (Class UK) visa.
The delegate, as outlined in the decision record, noted on the applicant’s application form he stated that he and the sponsor had committed to a shared life as a married couple to the exclusion of all others on 13 July 2019, and they had married that same day. The applicant lodged his Partner visa application 4 days later.
The delegate noted the Department had received a credible allegation on 14 August 2020 that the sponsor had been coerced into marrying the applicant, and the sponsor had been supplied with drugs and married the applicant immediately after. The allegation was made that photographs were taken of the sponsor’s birth certificate, and the witnesses and celebrant were all aware this was a non-genuine marriage. The allegation was the matter was reported to the NSW Police.
The delegate further noted that on 24 August 2020 the Department referred this matter to the Australian Federal Police who subsequently interviewed the sponsor. They reported back to the Department the sponsor had stated she met the applicant a day before the wedding and was informed she would be paid $1,500 for the marriage that was a “green card marriage”. Further allegations were that on the date of the wedding, the sponsor was driven to the marriage celebrant’s house where drug users acted as witnesses, and the sponsor was paid $750. The sponsor claimed the day after the wedding the applicant asked her to write down a contrived story of how she and the applicant met and was paid a further $250. The sponsor further claimed that she had been paid $800 per month and had received cheques in person, as well as cheques via mail for the contrived marriage. The sponsor claimed to have made a statement to the NSW Police at Springfield station after 3 weeks.
The delegate subsequently put to the applicant that it reasonably suspected he had provided false and misleading information in a material particular in his visa application. This false and misleading information included that he had entered into a contrived relationship/marriage for migration purposes. This was relevant to the consideration of cl 820.211 and cl 820.221, and the definition of ‘spouse’.
After this information was put to the applicant by the delegate under the relevant provisions, the applicant denied the allegations, claiming the “relationship was genuine from my prospective(sic). I was not aware what was in the mind of my wife.”
The applicant claimed the statements of the sponsor were false and had arisen as she had wanted $4,000 to purchase a motor vehicle. The applicant claimed he had told the sponsor he did not have the money after his Partner visa application costs and asked for 3 months to obtain the money. The applicant claims the sponsor instead kept demanding and threatening him, including giving his telephone number to a friend who also threatened him.
The applicant stated his marriage was not a “green card marriage”. He conceded he did provide cheques to the sponsor, claiming they were to pay for home expenses “which is the responsibility of every husband”. The applicant stated he was providing these funds for the sponsor to buy groceries and pay household groceries, but he subsequently believed the funds were being used to purchase drugs. The applicant claims he stopped providing money to the sponsor after he discovered she was taking drugs. The applicant claims this led to her making false allegations about himself and the relationship. The applicant claims the sponsor subsequently became violent and abusive. He states he eventually blocked the sponsor’s telephone number, and that was why she then made her allegations to the Police.
The delegate noted the applicant did not provide any documentation to substantiate his claims. The delegate noted the Australian Federal Police did not inform the Department of any concerns about the believability of the sponsor’s information, and he subsequently placed significant weight on the information gathered by the Australian Federal Police. The delegate also noted the paucity of evidence supplied by the applicant pertaining to the claimed spousal relationship, noting the Department had written to the applicant on multiple occasions seeking evidence of the relationship which were not responded to. The delegate found she was not satisfied the applicant was ever in a spousal relationship with the sponsor. The delegate did not consider the family violence allegations, as she was not convinced there was ever a genuine relationship between the parties.
The delegate concluded the applicant had provided, or caused to be provided, false or misleading information in relation to his application in a material particular and subsequently did not meet PIC 4020(1).
The delegate subsequently considered whether the applicant satisfied PIC 4020(4) for the waiver of the PIC 4020(1) criterion on the basis that there were compelling circumstances that affect the interests of Australia, or compassionate or compelling circumstances that affect the interests of an Australian citizen, Australian permanent resident, or eligible New Zealand citizen.
The delegate noted compelling or compassionate circumstances to waive PIC 4020(1) had been submitted by the applicant. The delegate nevertheless considered matters such as the claimed relationship between the parties; whether there were minor children that would be adversely affected by a decision not to waive; whether there were health issues affecting an Australian citizen, permanent resident, or eligible New Zealand citizen; and whether separation would result in the continuing separation of immediate family members. The delegate noted there was no evidence pertaining to any of these matters being relevant,
The delegate concluded in his decision that the applicant did not meet the PIC 4020(1) criterion, and having considered the evidence before him, he was not satisfied there were compelling circumstances that affect the interests of Australia, or compassionate or compelling circumstances that affect the interests of an Australian citizen, Australian permanent resident, or eligible New Zealand citizen to satisfy the waiver provisions. The delegate found that the applicant did not satisfy PIC 4020(1), and subsequently did not meet cl 820.226.
On 3 March 2025 the Tribunal sought further information from the Department relevant to the PIC 4020 issue. On 6 March 2025 the Department responded to the Tribunal.
On 7 March 2025 the Tribunal wrote to the applicant. The Tribunal noted there was also a s375A certificate on the file in relation to this information received from the Department, dated 5 March 2025. The Tribunal provided the applicant with the certificate and invited him to make submissions as to its validity. No submissions were received pertaining to the validity of the certificate until 21 March 2025. The applicant stated that the information should purportedly covered by the s375A certificate should be disclosed to him, and natural justice required him to be provided such information so he could respond. The Tribunal notes that having reviewed the s375A certificate, it considers it to be valid. The Tribunal subsequently cannot release the information to the applicant. The Tribunal furthermore notes that the applicant was nevertheless provided with the gist of the information under the relevant provisions and invited to comment on the information.
In its correspondence of 7 March 2025, the Tribunal also wrote to the applicant under s359A inviting him to comment on the following particulars:
• Allegations that the applicant married the sponsor through coercion 3 months after she turned 18 years of age and after being supplied with drugs.
• Allegations that the sponsor had no contact with the applicant since the wedding.
• Allegations that the wedding celebrant and the witnesses to the wedding have been involved in a migration scam.
• Allegations that the sponsor was paid monies to participate in a “green card marriage” through cash, a deposit into a bank account and through cheques.
• That offences relating to arranging fake marriages to obtain permanent residence contrary to s.240 of the Act were identified after reviewing the allegations made by the sponsor and may be referred to the Australian Border Force for further investigation.
The applicant was invited to comment on the information by 14 March 2025. No response was received by the Tribunal. No request for an extension of time to respond was made.
The applicant appeared before the Tribunal on 17 March 2025 to give evidence and present arguments.
At the hearing the Tribunal noted the applicant had not responded to the s359A invitation. The Tribunal invited the applicant again to respond, providing a return date of 21 March 2025.
On 21 March 2025 the applicant responded noting a drafting error in the s359A letter. The Tribunal subsequently corrected the error and sent a further s359A letter to the applicant with a response date of 28 March 2025. No response has been received to the letter at the time of decision. No request for an extension of time was made.
The applicant was represented in relation to the review. The representative attended the Tribunal hearing.
For the following reasons, the Tribunal has concluded that decision under review should be affirmed.
CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE
The issue in this review is whether the visa applicant meets Public Interest Criterion 4020 (PIC 4020) as required by cl 820.226 for the grant of the visa. Broadly speaking, this requires that:
·there is no evidence that the applicant has given, or caused to be given, to the Minister, an officer, the Tribunal, a relevant assessing authority, or Medical Officer of the Commonwealth, a bogus document or information that is false or misleading in a material particular in relation to the application for the visa or a visa that the applicant held in the 12 months before the application was made: PIC 4020(1); and
·the applicant and each member of the family unit has not been refused a visa because of a failure to satisfy PIC 4020(1) during the period starting 3 years before the application was made and ending when the visa is granted or refused, unless the applicant was under 18 at the time the application for the refused visa was made: PIC 4020(2) and (2AA); and
·the applicant satisfies the Minister as to his or her identity: PIC 4020(2A); and
·neither the applicant nor any family unit member has been refused a visa because of a failure to satisfy PIC 4020(2A) during the period starting 10 years before the application was made and ending when the visa is granted or refused, unless the applicant was under 18 at the time the application for the refused visa was made: PIC 4020(2B) and (2BA).
The requirements in PIC 4020(1) and (2) can be waived if there are certain compelling or compassionate circumstances justifying the granting of the visa: PIC 4020(4). However, this waiver does not apply to the identity requirements in PIC 4020(2A) and (2B). PIC 4020 is extracted in the attachment to this decision.
Has the applicant given, or caused to be given a bogus document, or information that is false or misleading in a material particular?
The term ‘information that is false or misleading in a material particular’ is defined in PIC 4020(5) and the term ‘bogus document’ is defined in s 5(1) of the Act (see the attachment to this decision). In contrast to the definition of ‘information that is false or misleading in a material particular’ in PIC 4020(5), the reference in the definition of bogus document to a document that was obtained because of a ‘false or misleading’ statement has no requirement that it be relevant to a criterion for the grant of the visa: Arora v MIBP [2016] FCAFC 35; Batra v MIAC [2013] FCA 274.
The requirement in PIC 4020(1) not to provide a bogus document, or false or misleading information, applies whether or not the Minister became aware of the bogus document or information that is false or misleading in a material particular because of information given by the applicant: PIC 4020(3). It also applies whether or not the document or information was provided by the applicant knowingly or unwittingly.
While PIC 4020 refers to information that is false, in the sense of purposely untrue, it is not necessary for the Minister (or the Tribunal on review) to conclude that the applicant was aware the information was purposely untrue in order for PIC 4020 to be engaged. However, an element of fraud or deception by some person is necessary to attract the operation of the provision: Trivedi v MIBP [2014] FCAFC 42.
The Tribunal discussed in significant detail at its hearing the delegate’s finding that the applicant had given, or caused to be given information that is false or misleading in a material particular in relation to his Partner visa application.
The applicant stated to the Tribunal that his relationship with the sponsor commenced in 2019 and concluded in a short period of time. The Tribunal noted the lack of evidence beyond a ceremonial marriage certificate and a bank statement (an account opened around the day of the wedding) as evidence of the parties being in a genuine spousal relationship. The applicant claimed that he and the sponsor had been living together for a short period before the marriage. He stated that he had tried to get the information necessary to support his Partner visa application.
The applicant denied all the sponsor’s allegations concerning the claimed contrived relationship and marriage, and stated the relationship was in fact a genuine and continuing spousal relationship. The applicant denied the allegations put to him in the Tribunal’s s359A correspondence when raised at the hearing.
The applicant did concede to providing cheques by post to the sponsor to an address in Penrith after she had allegedly walked out on the relationship. The applicant claimed this was due to his responsibilities as a husband, and the sponsor being his wife.
The applicant stated he would respond to the information and allegations contained specifically in the s359A letter in writing post-hearing (as outlined in paragraph 18 of this decision record). No response to this information and the allegations contained in the correspondence has been received by the Tribunal.
The Tribunal, noting the paucity of corroborative evidence before it that speaks to the past existence of a genuine spousal relationship between the applicant and sponsor, took the opportunity to briefly question the applicant about the financial aspects of the relationship; the nature of the household (the applicant claimed he and the sponsor resided briefly at an apartment in Mt Druitt); the social aspects of the relationship; and the nature of their commitment to each other. The applicant claimed he and the sponsor met through friends at a birthday party. The Tribunal considered the evidence before it speaking to the existence of a previous spousal relationship to be vague, tenuous, and very unconvincing.
The Tribunal has considered the oral testimony from its hearing as well as any written evidence before it.
The Tribunal, having considered the applicant’s oral testimony, his written submissions, and his evidence previously tendered to the delegate, finds it does not accept the applicant’s statements that the relationship with the sponsor was a genuine and continuing spousal relationship at the time of application. The Tribunal also does not accept the applicant’s submission that the claims made by the sponsor that the relationship was contrived are purely the result of the sponsor being aggrieved for his failure to provide her with money.
The Tribunal has considered whether the applicant has given, or caused to be given, to the Minister, an officer, the Tribunal, a relevant assessing authority or a Medical Officer of the Commonwealth:
·A ‘bogus document,’ as defined in s 5(1), i.e., a document that the Tribunal reasonably suspects is a document that:
o   purports to have been, but was not, issued in respect of the person; or
o   is counterfeit or has been altered by a person who does not have authority to do so; or
o   was obtained because of a false or misleading statement, whether or not made knowingly; and/or
·Information that is false or misleading in a material particular, as defined in PIC 4020(5), i.e., information that is:
o   false or misleading at the time it is given; and
o   relevant to any of the criteria the Minister may consider when making a decision on an application, whether or not the decision is made because of that information;
o   in relation to the visa application or a visa held in the 12 months before the visa application was made.
There is evidence before the Tribunal that the applicant has given, or caused to be given, to the Minister, an officer, the Tribunal, a relevant assessing authority or a Medical Officer of the Commonwealth ‘information that is false or misleading in a material particular’ as defined in PIC 4020(5). This evidence is as follows:
In regard to ‘information that is false or misleading in a material particular,’ as defined in PIC 4020(5):
oIn the applicant’s Partner visa application, he has claimed that he and the sponsor were in a genuine and continuing spousal relationship.
oIn the applicant’s Partner visa application, he has claimed that he and the sponsor had a mutual commitment to a shared life as a married couple to the exclusion of all others.
oIn the applicant’s Partner visa application, the applicant declared he had provided complete and correct information in every detail of the form, and on any attachments.
oIn the applicant’s Partner visa application, the applicant declared that he would inform the Department in writing immediately if he became aware of a change in circumstances (including a change of address).

The Tribunal finds the applicant has falsely claimed in his application form to be in a genuine and ongoing spousal relationship with the sponsor at the time of application. The Tribunal finds the applicant has falsely claimed that he and the sponsor had a mutual commitment to a shared life as a married couple to the exclusion of all others. The Tribunal finds that the applicant has made a false declaration that he had provided complete and correct information in every detail of the form, and on any attachments. The Tribunal finds that the applicant failed to inform the Department in writing immediately when he became aware of a change in circumstances.
The Tribunal considers this above false or misleading information was supplied for migration purposes. The Tribunal considers the evidence suggests the applicant attempted to deliberately deceive the Department in relation to his relationship situation with the sponsor in order to ultimately be granted a permanent Partner visa.
The Tribunal finds the information contained in the applicant’s Partner visa application of 17 July 2019, was both purposefully false or misleading at the time it was given, and is directly relevant to a material particular, namely the criteria the Minister may consider when making a decision on whether the Partner visa be granted: cl 820.211(2).
The Tribunal considers this information is false or misleading in a material particular as it is relevant to any assessment, for the purposes of a Partner (Temporary) (Class UK) visa, as to whether the applicant and sponsor were in a genuine and continuing spousal relationship at the time of application. The Tribunal has come to this conclusion based upon its assessment of the statements provided by the sponsor, the subsequent investigations by the Australian Federal Police into the claim that the marriage was contrived for migration purposes, and the Australian Federal Police finding, after its own investigation, that offences relating to arranging fake marriages to obtain permanent residence contrary to s.240 of the Act were identified after reviewing the allegations made by the sponsor, and may be referred to the Australian Border Force for further investigation. The Tribunal notes this specific matter was put to the applicant at its hearing and under s359A. No response to this specifically has been received beyond a blanket denial the relationship was contrived and a genuine spousal relationship existed between the applicant and sponsor. The Tribunal, of course, in reaching this conclusion, carefully considered the applicant’s denials of the sponsor’s claims, and his claim he was in fact in a genuine spousal relationship with the sponsor. The Tribunal has rejected the applicant’s claims and attempted explanations as lacking in substance and not credible based upon all the evidence before it. The Tribunal, for instance, is not satisfied with the applicant’s explanations that he continued to send cheques to the sponsor after she left the relationship due to his ‘responsibilities’ as a husband. Rather, the Tribunal considers such actions are more suggestive that the applicant was attempting to encourage the sponsor to continue the subterfuge of a genuine and continuing spousal relationship for the purposes of his visa application.
The Tribunal nevertheless does not in any way consider the sponsor to be an entirely innocent party in this matter. The Tribunal, based upon the evidence before it, is not satisfied that she was coerced or compelled to marry the applicant. The Tribunal rather considers the evidence suggests the sponsor, who was paid a considerable sum of money by the applicant (noting his claims he only did this as a loyal spouse), was likely at some point a party to a contrived relationship deliberately created for migration purposes.
The Tribunal finds the information the applicant provided was relevant to the assessment as to whether the applicant met the s5F criteria as a spouse of the sponsor, namely are they married to each other under a marriage that is valid for the purposes of the Act; do they have a mutual commitment to a shared life as a married couple to the exclusion of all others; is the relationship between them genuine and continuing; and are they living together, or not living separately and apart on a permanent basis.
The Tribunal thus finds that the applicant supplied ‘information that is false or misleading in a material particular’ to the Department as defined in PIC4020(5). This information, the Tribunal considers, was false and misleading at the time it was given.
On the basis of the evidence and the Tribunal’s findings above, the Tribunal is satisfied that the applicant has purposely given information that was false or misleading at the time it was given, and which is relevant to the criteria the Minister may consider when making a decision on an application, namely cl 820.211. The false or misleading information provided by the applicant was false or misleading in a material particular because this information was central to the assessment of the applicant’s claim that at the time of application, he and his Australian citizen sponsor were in a genuine and continuing spousal relationship.
Therefore, the applicant does not meet PIC 4020(1).
Should the requirements of PIC 4020(1) or (2) be waived?
The requirements of PIC 4020(1) and (2) may be waived where there are compelling circumstances that affect the interests of Australia, or where there are compassionate or compelling circumstances that affect the interests of an Australian citizen, an Australian permanent resident, or an eligible New Zealand citizen (as defined in reg 1.03), that justify the granting of the visa. The decision-maker must first be satisfied that there are such circumstances, then must consider whether to exercise the discretion to waive the requirements, having regard to those circumstances: Kaur v MIBP [2017] FCAFC 184.
The expressions ‘compelling circumstances’ and ‘compassionate or compelling circumstances’ are not defined for these purposes. To be compelling, the circumstances must force or drive the decision-maker irresistibly to be satisfied: see Plaintiff M64/2015 v MIBP [2015] HCA 50. The ordinary meaning of ‘compassionate’ relates to feelings of sympathy, sorrow, pity, or concern for others.
For the following reasons, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the requirements should be waived.
No compelling circumstances that affect the interests of Australia have been submitted by the applicant. There are no compelling circumstances that affect the interests of Australia apparent on the evidence before the Tribunal that would compel it to exercise the discretion to waive the PIC4020(1) requirements. The Tribunal is subsequently satisfied on the evidence before it that there are no compelling circumstances that affect the interests of Australia that justify granting the visa and exercising the waiver.
The Tribunal has considered whether there are compassionate or compelling circumstances that affect the interests of an Australian citizen, an Australian permanent resident, or an eligible New Zealand citizen (as defined in reg 1.03), that justify the granting of the visa and exercising the waiver.
At the Tribunal’s hearing the applicant and his representative stated that written submissions would be provided in relation to compassionate or compelling circumstances that affect the interests of an Australian citizen, an Australian permanent resident, or an eligible New Zealand citizen (as defined in reg 1.03), that justify the granting of the visa and exercise of the waiver post-hearing. The Tribunal was careful to explain to the applicant and his representative the waiver power and compassionate or compelling circumstances. The Tribunal noted that submissions should be provided by 21 March 2025. No submissions have been provided concerning the waiver. No request for an extension of time to provide any compassionate or compelling circumstances that affect the interests of an Australian citizen, an Australian permanent resident, or an eligible New Zealand citizen (as defined in reg 1.03), that justify the granting of the visa, and exercising of the waiver has been made.
The Tribunal has nevertheless considered the evidence before it concerning whether there are compassionate or compelling circumstances that affect the interests of an Australian citizen, an Australian permanent resident, or an eligible New Zealand citizen (as defined in reg 1.03), that justify the granting of the visa.
Given the applicant is not an Australian citizen, Australian permanent resident or eligible New Zealand citizen, his own personal interests are of no relevance in the Tribunal’s consideration whether the requirements of PIC4020(1) ought to be waived.
The applicant confirmed at the Tribunal’s hearing that he is single and has no children. The Tribunal finds that the applicant subsequently has no minor child or partner who is an Australian citizen, Australian permanent resident or eligible New Zealand citizen who would be adversely impacted should the Tribunal not exercise the waiver.
In his application the applicant stated his father was deceased, whilst his mother and brother were both had a country of residence of India. Any decision not to waive the requirements of PIC 4020(1) will not impact any immediate family member who is an Australian citizen, Australian permanent resident, or eligible New Zealand citizen.
The applicant confirmed at the hearing he has no ongoing relationship with the sponsor. The Tribunal furthermore finds the applicant and sponsor were never in a genuine spousal relationship, rather the relationship and the Partner visa application was contrived for migration purposes. The Tribunal is satisfied that the sponsor’s interests, as an Australian citizen, are not impacted if the Tribunal does not waive the requirements of PIC 4020(1).
The decision in Wu v MICMSMA [2021] FCCA 1091 is of relevance in the Tribunal’s assessment. Wu holds that each of the 1.15A factors must be considered, and findings made against them, and then consideration be given as to whether any of the findings made against reg 1.15A either singularly or cumulatively are compelling or compassionate and if so, it justifies the granting of the visa. The Tribunal notes that the Wu decision is also authority for the proposition that simply being in a genuine (s 5F) relationship is not of itself compelling. The question before the Tribunal is whether there is anything in the reg 1.15A matters that makes up what the applicant claims was a genuine spousal relationship which can be considered compelling or compassionate circumstances.
The Tribunal has considered the purported financial aspects of the relationship; the nature of the household; the social aspects of the relationship; and the nature of the parties’ commitment to each other. The Tribunal again notes the paucity of evidence before it pertaining to these matters, and more importantly notes its finding that the entire spousal relationship was contrived. There is nothing in any of the 1.15A factors either singularly or cumulatively that the Tribunal finds are compelling or compassionate circumstances that affect the interest of an Australian citizen, Australian permanent resident, or eligible New Zealand citizen. There are subsequently none that would justify the grant of the visa.
At the hearing the applicant stated he had worked at a hospitality business at Maroubra Beach for around 5 years. Whilst the Tribunal has no evidence as to whether the business is operated by an Australian citizen, Australian permanent resident, or eligible New Zealand citizen, for the purposes of this review the Tribunal has considered the waiver provisions from this perspective. The Tribunal accepts the applicant is a relatively long-term employee and obviously valued by his employer. The Tribunal accepts any departure of the applicant from Australia would impact his employer in a challenging labour market. The economic challenges facing the hospitality business, especially small businesses, are well known. The Tribunal recognises not exercising the waiver may impact adversely his employer, but it does not consider these constitute compassionate or compelling circumstances impacting an Australian citizen, Australian permanent resident, or eligible New Zealand citizen that would subsequently justify the granting of the visa.
The Tribunal also notes the applicant has been in Australia since 2012 when he arrived on a Student visa. The applicant stated he successfully completed a range of studies in human resources, accounting, cookery, and human resources. The Tribunal accepts the applicant may have acquired friendships over such an extended period of time that are Australian citizens, Australian permanent residents, or eligible New Zealand citizens. There is no evidence however before the Tribunal of any such friendships and why they would justify the granting of the visa and the exercise of the waiver. Even if there are friendships, the Tribunal notes the applicant can maintain friendships remotely through modern forms of technology. The Tribunal does not consider any friendships the applicant may have acquired over the past 15 years with Australian citizens, Australian permanent residents, or eligible New Zealand citizens justify the granting of the visa.
The Tribunal has considered all the evidence before it. The Tribunal has had regard to Departmental policy in considering the waiver.
The Tribunal finds there are no compelling circumstances that affect the interests of Australia that justify the granting of the visa.
The Tribunal finds there are no compassionate or compelling circumstances that affect the interests of an Australian citizen, an Australian permanent resident, or an eligible New Zealand citizen (as defined in reg 1.03), that justify the granting of the visa.
Therefore, the requirements of PIC 4020(1) should not be waived.
On the basis of the above, the applicant does not satisfy PIC 4020 for the purposes of cl 820.226.
Having concluded that the applicant does not meet PIC 4020, the Tribunal finds no evidence that the applicant meets the criteria for any other subclass within the class of visa sought. The Tribunal does note the applicant made claims to be a victim of family violence on the basis of verbal threats purportedly received from the sponsor and a friend of the sponsor. The Tribunal notes the applicant has not presented any of the documentary evidence required to make a claim of family violence. Furthermore, the Tribunal notes that any finding of family violence must have occurred when the spousal or de facto relationship was in existence. Given the finding the relationship was contrived, and there was never a spousal or de factor relationship between the applicant and the sponsor, there is no claim of family violence to be assessed.
DECISION
The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicant a Partner (Temporary) (Class UK) visa.
Date(s) of hearing:  17 March 2025
Representative for the Applicant:           Mr Prabhjot Singh Sandhu (MARN: 0963599)
ATTACHMENT
Migration Regulations 1994
Schedule 4
4020(1)         There is no evidence before the Minister that the applicant has given, or caused to be given, to the Minister, an officer, the ART during the review of a reviewable migration decision, a relevant assessing authority or a Medical Officer of the Commonwealth, a bogus document or information that is false or misleading in a material particular in relation to:
(a)the application for the visa; or
(b)a visa that the applicant held in the period of 12 months before the application was made.
(2)The Minister is satisfied that during the period:
(a)starting 3 years before the application was made; and
(b)ending when the Minister makes a decision to grant or refuse to grant the visa;
the applicant and each member of the family unit of the applicant has not been refused a visa because of a failure to satisfy the criteria in subclause (1).
(2AA)However, subclause (2) does not apply to the applicant if, at the time the application for the refused visa was made, the applicant was under 18.
(2A)The applicant satisfies the Minister as to the applicant’s identity.
(2B)The Minister is satisfied that during the period:
(a)starting 10 years before the application was made; and
(b)ending when the Minister makes a decision to grant or refuse to grant the visa;
neither the applicant, nor any member of the family unit of the applicant, has been refused a visa because of a failure to satisfy the criteria in subclause (2A).
(2BA)However, subclause (2B) does not apply to the applicant if, at the time the application for the refused visa was made, the applicant was under 18.
(3)To avoid doubt, subclauses (1) and (2) apply whether or not the Minister became aware of the bogus document or information that is false or misleading in a material particular because of information given by the applicant.
(4)The Minister may waive the requirements of any or all of paragraphs (1)(a) or (b) and subclause (2) if satisfied that:
(a)compelling circumstances that affect the interests of Australia; or
(b)compassionate or compelling circumstances that affect the interests of an Australian citizen, an Australian permanent resident or an eligible New Zealand citizen;
justify the granting of the visa.
(5)In this clause:
information that is false or misleading in a material particular means information that is:
(a)false or misleading at the time it is given; and
(b)relevant to any of the criteria the Minister may consider when making a decision on an application, whether or not the decision is made because of that information.
…
Migration Act 1958
s 5      Interpretation
(1) In this Act, unless contrary intention appears:
…
bogus document, in relation to a person, means a document that the Minister reasonably suspects is a document that:
(a)purports to have been, but was not, issued in respect of the person; or
(b)is counterfeit or has been altered by a person who does not have authority to do so; or
(c)was obtained because of a false or misleading statement, whether or not made knowingly.
…