MSXY and Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs (Migration)

[2022] AATA 1435

MSXY and Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs (Migration) [2022] AATA 1435 (31 May 2022)

Division:GENERAL DIVISION

File Number:          2022/2010

Re:MSXY  

APPLICANT

AndMinister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs

RESPONDENT

DECISION

Tribunal:Senior Member R Bellamy

Date:31 May 2022

Place:Brisbane

The decision under review is set aside and substituted such that the Tribunal finds that the Applicant passes the character test under section 501(6) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (the Act) and his application for a Skilled Regional (Class VB) visa should not be refused under s501(1) of the Act.

.....................[SGD]................................

Senior Member R Bellamy

CATCHWORDS

MIGRATION – refusal of visa application - Skilled Regional (Class VB) visa - whether Applicant fails character test under s 501(6)(d) – whether more than minimal or remote risk of reoffending – domestic violence - decision set aside and substituted.

LEGISLATION

Migration Act 1958 (Cth)

SECONDARY MATERIALS

Direction No 90 – Visa refusal and cancellation under section 501 and revocation of a mandatory cancellation of a visa under section 501CA

REASONS FOR DECISION

Senior Member R Bellamy

31 May 2022

INTRODUCTION

1. In 2016 the Applicant, his wife and their child moved to Australia from Sri Lanka on a Skilled Regional Sponsored (Provisional) (Class SP) (Subclass 489) visa. On 4 August 2018 the Applicant applied for a Skilled Regional (Class VB) visa (“visa”), which is a permanent visa. His wife and their son are secondary applicants on that application.

2. On 3 March 2022 the Respondent refused to grant the visa under s 501(1) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) on the grounds that the Applicant did not pass s 501(6)(d) of the character test. On 11 March 2022, the Applicant sought review of the decision. While the notice of the reviewable decision states that the visa application sponsor/nominee can apply to the Tribunal for review of the decision, I am satisfied that the Applicant has standing to apply as he has done. The Respondent did not take issue with the Applicant making the application for review.

3. The hearing of this application took place on 17 and 18 May 2022. The Applicant and his wife gave evidence via video conference and Dr Daniel Bowen gave telephone evidence. The Tribunal also received the written evidence that is listed in the attached exhibit list, marked “Annexure A”.

   ISSUES

4. Section 501(1) provides:

   “The Minister may refuse to grant a visa to a person if the person does not satisfy the Minister that the person passes the character test.”

5. The character test is found in s 501(6) of the Act. It contains several separate grounds upon which a person may not pass the character test. Section 501(6)(d)(i) was the sole ground relied on by the Respondent.

6. Subsection 501(6)(d)(i) of the Act relevantly provides:

   For the purposes of this section, a person does not pass the character test if:

   …

   (d)  in the event the person were allowed to enter or to remain in Australia, there is a risk that the person would:

   (i)  engage in criminal conduct in Australia…

7. Accordingly, the issues for determination by this Tribunal are:

   (a)whether, if the Applicant were allowed to remain in Australia, there is a risk that he would engage in criminal conduct in Australia; and

   (b)if there is such a risk, meaning he does not pass the character test, whether the discretion in s 501(1) of the Act should be exercised to refuse to grant the visa.

   BACKGROUND

8. The Applicant was born in 1977. He married his wife “Ms A” in 2010 and they had a son in 2011. They all lived in Sri Lanka until 2016 when they came to Australia. The Applicant does not have a criminal record in Sri Lanka. Ms A obtained a degree in Sri Lanka and she worked as a mining engineer there. The Applicant was a successful businessman in Sri Lanka. The family moved to Australia for their son’s education and in the hope that Ms A could expand her career prospects due to the size of the mining industry in Australia. However, neither the Applicant nor Ms A were able to gain employment in their respective fields. Ms A indicated that employers wanted people on permanent rather than temporary visas. The Applicant worked as a welder, kitchen hand, cleaner and labourer, and Ms A worked as housekeeper at an apartment complex.  

9. In 2017 and 2019, the Applicant committed domestic violence on Ms A. Ms A has made no secret of the fact that, believing that if the Applicant does not get the visa, she and her son as secondary visa applicants will have to return to Sri Lanka with him, she ardently wants the Applicant to succeed in the visa application. This might suggest that she had strong motivation to tailor her evidence and downplay both the offending and her estimation of the risk that the Applicant re-offending. However, having heard her evidence and observed her demeanour, and taking into account the objective evidence such as police reports, I consider that Ms A spoke with candour about the Applicant’s offending and her marriage. Nor do I think the Applicant pressured her when she gave her evidence: he sat behind her when she gave evidence and as the day wore on he appeared to doze off.             

10. On 29 October 2017, the Applicant came home from work late. He had been helping a female colleague to purchase a car. He and his colleagues had been helping this lady who was recently divorced and going through a hard time. Ms A was furious with him, screamed at him and accused him of having an affair. Over the next few days, Ms A continued to accuse the Applicant of having an affair and tried to start arguments with him. According to the Applicant, Ms A stopped cooking for him and caring for him; it was a terrible and frustrating time for him. According to Ms A, she went out of her way to show the Applicant that she did not want to care for him and she wanted to see him suffer for putting her through the agony she was experiencing.

11. On 1 November 2017, the Applicant and Ms A had another argument and this time, the Applicant lost his temper, smashed a mobile phone jointly owned by them, and kicked a coffee table, breaking it. According to the police Facts Sheet that was provided to the court, the Applicant told Ms A that if she continued to challenge him about his whereabouts and activities she could leave the relationship and he could “burn” and “kill” her should he see fit. Almost identical threats had been made by the Applicant to Ms A on 29 October 2017. Those threats made Ms A fearful for her safety and that of her child. When the police attended the residence on 1 November 2017, the loungeroom looked like it had been ransacked.

12. In Ms A’s oral evidence, when asked about the Applicant saying he could kill or burn her, she said the words the Applicant said do not translate into English but kill and burn are similar. She said the expression the Applicant used was idiomatic, it was figurative and an exaggeration, like people say they will kill someone without literally meaning it in English. She did not think the Applicant wanted to kill or burn her. In the hearing Ms A said she told the police the Applicant said that to her because she suspected him of having an affair. However, I did not take her evidence to mean that what she told the police was not true. Rather, I took her to mean that she revealed what the Applicant had said to her because she felt animosity towards him because she suspected he was having an affair.  

13. Neither the Applicant nor Ms A recalled there being items strewn or thrown around. I accept that the loungeroom appeared to be in disarray but I am not satisfied that the Applicant threw or smashed items except for the phone and table.

14. Ms A had not intended to report the incident to the police, however the following day a colleague asked her why she looked tired and unhappy, and she told the colleague about the incident. Her colleague contacted the police, who spoke with Ms A. The Applicant was subsequently arrested and interviewed with the assistance of an interpreter. According to the police Facts Sheet, the Applicant appeared to be remorseful for his conduct and he cooperated with the police. However, the police records do not contain a transcript of the interview or any indication of what conduct the Applicant admitted to and what, if anything, he denied. 

15. On 9 February 2018, the Applicant, not speaking English and not having any familiarity with the criminal justice system, pleaded guilty to:

    ·    two charges of “stalk/intimidate intend fear physical etc harm (domestic) -T2”; and

    ·    two charges of “destroy or damage property (DV)”.

16. The charge sheets indicate that the applicant was charged with one stalking charge and one damage property charge relating to 29 October 2017, and with identical charges relating to 1 November 2017. Both of the destroy/damage property charges alleged that the Applicant smashed a mobile phone. The Facts Sheet indicates that it relates to two charges, but it refers to events on 29 October and 1 November 2017 and appears to provide the sentencing basis for all four offences. The Applicant later said that he did not understand the charges against him, and he felt he was not given a fair opportunity to answer the charges and give the full facts. Given the lack of clarity in the police case against the Applicant, I am inclined to believe him. For all four offences, the Applicant received a two-year good behaviour bond. That day, the court made an Apprehended Domestic Violence Order (“ADVO”) that allowed the Applicant to live with Ms A and their son.

17. Ms A was relieved and glad to have the Applicant home. According to her, their lives went on happily and she found a job that she liked in her field as a soil technician. They moved from where they lived (“Town A”) to a nearby town (“Town B”) to be closer to Ms A’s work. 

18. During November 2019, the Applicant, who was unhappy in his job, frequently travelled back to Town A in search of a new job. Sometimes he saw his former colleagues. Ms A began to question his movements, suspecting him of having an affair with the same person she had previously suspected.

19. According to a police Facts Sheet, on 22 November 2019, Ms A told the police that three days earlier, she had confronted the Applicant about constantly travelling back to Town A as she believed there may be another woman. The Applicant became very angry and slapped her with an open hand several times on her face, pulled her hair and grabbed her around the throat. She made this report after the police attended her workplace because a colleague called the police after the Applicant attended and appeared to argue with Ms A. The police did not observe any marks on Ms A, which is not surprising given the assault occurred three days prior. Ms A refused to make a statement.

20. According to both the Applicant and Ms A, on around 21 or 22 November 2019, the Applicant discovered that Ms A had disconnected his mobile phone without informing him. However, he guessed that she had done it. He needed the phone to apply for jobs. As the Applicant could not phone Ms A about it, he went to her workplace to get the SIM card from her. They spoke in their native language in raised voices, him admonishing her for taking the SIM card without telling him and her accusing him of having an affair. A colleague who had been told about the previous incident, heard the exchange and assumed they were having a heated argument. He called the police. When the police arrived, the Applicant and Ms A told them there was no issue, but the police arrested the Applicant. As the police could not get an interpreter, they did not interview the Applicant. The police released him the following day on bail. The Applicant subsequently pleaded guilty to assault and breaching the ADVO. Both the offences appear to relate to the events on 19 November 2019.  

21. The police Facts Sheet alleged that the Applicant had asked Ms A to hand over her mobile phone as he did not agree with her having one. There is no indication of how the police came to believe that. Certainly, there is no suggestion that the Applicant or Ms A told them that. Such a characterisation puts a more sinister complexion on the conversation between the Applicant and Ms A, with implications that the Applicant sought to control and isolate Ms A. The only people present who spoke the language in which the Applicant and Ms A were communicating were the Applicant and Ms A. I prefer their accounts to the account in the Facts Sheet.

22. The evidence about the assault is less clear. The Applicant and Ms A both said in statutory declarations they made for the purpose of the visa application, that they did not know what the assault related to. However, in a subsequent statement, Ms A said the Applicant slapped her and pulled her hair. In his oral evidence the Applicant said he recalled pulling Ms A’s hair but not grabbing her throat or hitting her. The Applicant had help writing his statutory declaration. He said he told a lawyer the issues and what he did, and the lawyer wrote it down. Ms A was not present. Both statutory declarations have similar structure and contain paragraphs that are almost identical. It appears that the Applicant’s statutory declaration was used as a template for Ms A’s. The Applicant expressed difficulty recalling some of the offending throughout his evidence, saying he did not want to “record” them again and again and he wanted to carry on with his life. My impression was that the Applicant wants to put the offending behind him and tries not to think about it. Ms A recently told Dr Bowen, Clinical Psychologist, that she hit the Applicant several times in that incident. However, this was apparently was not reported to the police or included in any statement from the Applicant or Ms A. I find that the Applicant slapped Ms A several times and grabbed her hair. I further find that Ms A hit him during that incident. I am not satisfied that the Applicant grabbed Ms A’s throat.   

23. On 6 December 2019 the Applicant was sentenced for assault and breaching the ADVO. As he had committed those offences during the period of the good behaviour bond that had been imposed for the previous offences, those offences were called up and he was re-sentenced for them. For all offences, he was sentenced to an 18 month Community Corrections Order (“CCO”). A condition of the order was that he complete an EQUIPS domestic violence program. However, the Applicant was assessed as having a low risk of re-offending according to the Level of Service Inventory-Revised (“LSI-R”) actuarial risk assessment tool. Due to his low risk rating, he was not eligible to do that course. In November 2020, the Applicant’s supervision under the order was suspended due to his low risk assessment. In effect, from November 2020 Community Corrections did not consider that the Applicant required any intervention or supervision.

24. When Ms A spoke with the police on 22 November 2019, she alleged that the Applicant had sexually assaulted her on 18 November 2019. The police file notes do not contain any details of the alleged sexual assault. On 3 December 2019, she attended the police station and retracted her allegation. The Applicant gave evidence that the first he knew about this allegation was when he read the materials filed by the Respondent a few weeks before the hearing. In the hearing Ms A indicated that the allegation of sexual assault was not true. She declined say why she made that allegation. I am satisfied that the allegation was without basis.  

25. There is no evidence that the Applicant was affected by drugs or alcohol when he committed the offences. The Applicant said he does not take illicit drugs or consume alcohol, and I accept that.    

26. The Applicant has not committed any offences apart from the offences he committed against Ms A.      

    Whether there is a risk that the Applicant will engage in criminal conduct in Australia

27. In applying this subsection, I am guided by paragraph 6 of section 2 of Annex A of Direction No 90 – Visa refusal and cancellation under section 501 and revocation of a mandatory cancellation of a visa under section 501CA (“the Direction”) which provides that the grounds are enlivened if there is evidence suggesting that there is “more than a minimal or remote chance” that the person, if allowed to enter or to remain in Australia, would engage in conduct specified in section 501(6)(d) of the Act. Further, it is not sufficient to find that the person has engaged in conduct specified in paragraph 501(6)(d) of the Act in the past. There must be a risk that the person would engage in the future in conduct for which a criminal conviction could be recorded.

28. According to the Applicant, he and Ms A normally have a peaceful, happy married life, and apart from the two incidents they have never had any major quarrels. Ms A said there were only two incidents in their marriage when the Applicant lost his temper. She knows he is terribly sorry and ashamed about those, and he is determined to understand his behaviour and change it. She said apart from those incidents, the Applicant has been a loving, caring husband and father throughout their married life. She is not afraid of him. She said if she thought he was dangerous she would not be with him.

29. There is no evidence that Ms A ever wanted the Applicant to be kept away from her, their son or their home. In fact, she considers that “outsiders took matters to their hands and tried to intervene in [her] family affairs thinking they [were] helping…”. In late 2020, she applied to have the ADVO revoked or varied. She did that of her own volition and the Applicant did not find out until she had made the application. 

30. After the second offending episode, Ms A met the lady she suspected of having an affair with the Applicant and she now accepts that they are merely good friends. Ms A did some counselling with a local centre, and she and the Applicant sought help from their general practitioner (“GP”) who speaks their language. Ms A said “we always go to our family doctor with our problem”. Ms A believes that if she suspects the Applicant of having an affair in the future, she would now know how to raise it with him respectfully. She and the Applicant have recently started relationship counselling and she intends that to continue because she considers it to be beneficial to their family life. 

31. According to the Applicant, he does not blame Ms A in any way. He said that while her suspicion was incorrect, his reaction was unacceptable, and he is deeply ashamed of his behaviour. He has discussed his offending with his GP and his priest. I have before me a letter from the GP that says the Applicant has been a patient since 2016. The GP states that he knows him to be well mannered, polite and family oriented, and he has not noticed any aberrant behaviour. I also have a letter from the priest, dated in March 2022, that confirms that he had spoken with the Applicant and Ms A about their relationship and the problems they had. He said they were open to marriage counselling and he was as confident, as far as one could be, that they were committed to each other and that they remained stable.

32. A solicitor who had known the Applicant and Ms A for over four years at the time he wrote his letter of support, said he was surprised to hear about what occurred between the Applicant and Ms A because the Applicant is known in their community for being a loving husband and father. He said the Applicant has an upright character and he is very active in the community, helping everyone. He described the Applicant as honest and kindhearted. He said the Applicant expressed deep remorse and is ready to accept responsibility for his actions, having proven this by going to church every Sunday and strengthening his Christian values.

33. A colleague of the Applicant who has known him since August 2017 described the Applicant as well mannered, polite and well liked in the workplace. He said he had no concerns with respect to his behaviour. He added that the Applicant helped with church, office and community functions, and is seen generally as an upstanding citizen. Another colleague provided a letter of support that also spoke about the Applicant in positive terms.

1. Where domestic violence is concerned, the opinions of those outside the family home may not mean much because domestic abusers tend to abuse in private, manipulate or coerce their victim to keep the abuse secret, and present a public persona that is different to who they are in private. However, in this case, Ms A felt at liberty to tell a colleague about the first incident and to volunteer information to the police about the second incident. The police were at her work because the Applicant spoke in a raised voice to Ms A in a public setting. The Applicant does not appear to be someone who cultivates a public image that differs from who he is privately. Accordingly, I give some weight to the character references. I give a great deal of weight to Ms A’s description of the Applicant and their marriage. 

2. The Applicant has done around seven hours of counselling with a relationship counsellor and he plans to do more. A letter from a Mr Whitfield, Relationship Counsellor, dated in April 2022, confirms that the Applicant and Ms A have engaged with him. In the hearing, the Applicant indicated that he is learning how to handle stressful situations, for example he would discuss a problem rather than arguing. He also said he would go out for a while and cool down. He expressed confidence that in future he will be able to deal with the stresses that arise in a relationship in a rational and non-violent manner. He said the only way is through respect and love for each other.

3. The Applicant’s engagement in relationship counselling was rather last minute and just in time for the hearing in this matter. However, this is not the only rehabilitative action the Applicant has taken. He sought help from his GP and his priest. He sought to remove the cause of the conflict between him and Ms A by introducing Ms A to his female colleague and assuring her of his fidelity. He has refrained from any further aggression or violence since November 2019.  

4. The Applicant and Ms A were interviewed by Dr Bowen for two hours together. Ms A translated for the Applicant. Dr Bowen provided a written report and gave evidence in the hearing.

5. Dr Bowen did not detect above normal levels of depression, anxiety or stress in either the Applicant or Ms A. The Applicant and Ms A reported that it was stressful in the first few years after moving to Australia. Challenges included learning English, adjusting to Australian culture, working long hours and caring for their son, and having to start from “the bottom” in Australia whereas they came from a good situation in Sri Lanka. Dr Bowen considered that the Applicant answered questions openly and candidly, and he took the time to provide a considered response.

6. A colleague of Dr Bowen’s administered the Personality Assessment Inventory (“PAI”) and provided analysis based on that assessment tool. The test required the Applicant to answer 344 questions online by selecting the most appropriate answer from a picklist. Ms A translated the questions for him. The PAI assesses psychopathological syndromes and provides information relevant for clinical diagnosis, treatment planning, and screening for psychopathology. The Applicant was not assessed according to any risk assessment tool that specifically measures the risk of future violent offending. The PAI results indicated that the Applicant tended to present himself in a consistently favourable light, and as being relatively free of common shortcomings to which most individuals will admit. He appeared reluctant to admit to minor faults. The results indicated some concern with impulsiveness and anger, as well as inflated self-esteem, expansiveness, or grandiosity.

7. However, I will not delve much into the PAI results because the report qualified many of the results on the basis that the factors the test looked at were hard to measure due to time constraints and the language barrier. Further, some of the results were inconsistent with Dr Bowen’s observations and opinions based on his interview with the Applicant and Ms A. In addition, it seems logical that the Applicant could have consciously or subconsciously given more positive responses to questions because his wife, who he would naturally want to hold him in high esteem, was privy to his answers. That could explain why the Applicant’s answers indicated that he tended to present himself in a consistently favourable light and appeared reluctant to admit to minor faults. I asked Dr Bowen if Ms A’s involvement could have affected the answers the Applicant gave and he did not discount that possibility. 

8. Dr Bowen noted that the Applicant had affirmed to Ms A that he has not and will not have an affair, and that he had become more tolerant of her questioning and now often tries to use humour to bring fun into their relationship. Ms A said she saw her actions of questioning and investigating as those of a jealous teenager, and as a grown woman, she has stopped suspecting the Applicant of having an affair, believing that he loves her and is committed to her.

9. Dr Bowen thought the Applicant and Ms A demonstrated a reasonable and balanced level of insight into the factors that led to the offending. Both were able to reflect on their relationship and identify keys areas for learning and personal development. He considered that the Applicant and Ms A were able to own to a number of the things that they did that were not good.  They were reasonably open with a range of things that they did not necessarily need to be. 

10. Dr Bowen assessed the Applicant as having a low risk of reoffending. This accords with the low risk assessment made by Corrective Services using the LSI-R. Dr Bowen’s assessment was partly based on the Applicant and Ms A continuing their counselling for another six to 12 appointments to address underlying issues and increase their level of understanding and skill in things such as using effective coping and conflict resolution strategies.

11. Dr Bowen was asked if the low risk he attributed to the Applicant was more than a trivial risk or a minimal risk. He initially attempted to give a more precise risk rating, and he said he could imagine there being a lower risk than the Applicant’s. However, he qualified that opinion with two factors. One was the issues he already mentioned in the report, being the time limitation and language barrier affecting the reliability of the PAI results. The other was that he does not regard himself as an expert in risk assessments – he said he does not do them every week. Dr Bowen added that there was some possibility of re-offending even acknowledging the Applicant’s and Ms A’s insight and willingness to make changes. He later indicted that on the information he had, he could not make a risk assessment that was more precise than low, medium or high.

12. I give less weight to the result of the PAI, and more weight to Dr Bowen’s overall observations and assessments. I am not convinced that Dr Bowen was in a position to make a reliable determination of the Applicant’s risk of re-offending that was more precise than “low”. That leaves the question - how low is the Applicant’s risk of re-offending?  

13. I respectfully accept the Applicant’s submission that where the risk of re-offending relates to a particular contingency, the Tribunal should consider the likelihood of that contingency arising and the risk that if the contingency were to arise again, the Applicant would react the same way he did before.

14. In over ten years of marriage, the only thing that has led to violent conflict between the Applicant and Ms A was Ms A’s suspicion that the Applicant was having an affair and the Applicant’s inability to cope with Ms A’s anger and accusations. The Applicant and Ms A have reduced the chances of that contingency occurring again, and Ms A has the insight to deal with any future suspicions of that nature in a better way. Given Ms A previously told the police that the Applicant had committed a serious crime that he did not commit, and this is the sort of thing that could cause heightened distress and conflict within a relationship, I asked the Applicant how he would react if Ms A again accused him of a crime he did not commit. He indicated that he was certain that she would not do that again because they have a more loving relationship now. Ms A made that allegation in the context of her suspicion that the Applicant was having an affair. She has resolved to deal with suspicions like that in a more mature manner in future. I consider that the risk that an emotionally charged situation like a false allegation or a suspicion of an affair is low. The risk that the Applicant would react with aggression or violence if that contingency occurred is also low. Accordingly, I think the chance that the Applicant will commit further offences against Ms A is minimal.      

15. The Applicant has not offended against any other person. His marriage to Ms A seems solid and they both wish to stay together, making it unlikely that he will re-partner. There is not more than a minimal chance that the Applicant would offend against anyone else.

16. I am not satisfied that there is more than a minimal or remote chance that the Applicant if allowed to remain in Australia, would engage in criminal conduct. He does not fail the character test under s 501(6)(d)(i) of the Act.

    DECISION

17. The decision under review is set aside and substituted such that the Tribunal finds that the Applicant passes the character test under section 501(6) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (the Act) and his application for a Skilled Regional (Class VB) visa should not be refused under s501(1) of the Act.

I certify that the preceding 50 (fifty) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of Senior Member R Bellamy

...........................[SGD]...........................................

Associate

Dated: 31 May 2022

Date of hearing:

17 and 18 May 2022

Solicitor for the Applicant

Mr Michael Jones   

Solicitor for the Respondent

Ms Jennifer Strugnell

Minter Ellison

ANNEXURE A – EXHIBIT LIST

EXHIBIT	DESCRIPTION OF EVIDENCE	PARTY	DATE OF DOCUMENT	DATE RECEIVED
G1	Section 501 G-Documents (G1 to G43 paged 1 to 220)	R	-	25 March 2022
A1	Applicant's Statement of Facts, Issues and Contentions (paged 1 to 8)	A	13 April 2022	11 April 2022
A2	Applicant’s Reply (paged 1 to 3)	A	4 May 2022	4 May 2022
A3	Statement of the Applicant (2 pages)	A	11 April 2022	11 April 2022
A4	Statement of the Applicant’s Wife (2 pages)	A	11 April 2022	11 April 2022
A5	Letter from Fr Kennedy (1 page)	A	29 March 2022	11 April 2022
A6	Report of Dr Daniel Bowen, Clinical Psychologist (7 pages)	A	8 April 2022	11 April 2022
A7	Letter from Proprietor Dubbo City Welding Works (1 page)	A	11 April 2022	13 April 2022
A8	Employment History of the Applicant’s Wife (1 page)	A	12 April 2022	13 April 2022
A9	Letter from C Whitfield, Relationship Counsellor (2 pages)	A	13 April 2022	13 April 2022
A10	Supporting Evidence re current situation in Sri Lanka (29 pages)	A	-	13 April 2022
R1	Respondent’s Statement of Facts, Issues and Contentions (paged 1 to 9)	R	28 April 2022	28 April 2022
R2	Respondent’s Supplementary Documents (S1 to S17, paged 1 to 48)	R	-	28 April 2022
R3	Respondent’s Further Supplementary Documents (FS1 paged 1 to 11)	R	-	9 May 2022