Nguyen (Migration) - [2024] ARTA 484

NGUYEN (MIGRATION) [2024] ARTA 484 (18 DECEMBER 2024)
DECISION AND
REASONS FOR DECISION
Applicant:Mr Tuan Khoa Nguyen
Respondent:  Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs
Tribunal Number:  1935695

Tribunal:Senior Member A. Murphy
Place:Melbourne
Date: 18 December 2024
Decision:The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicant a Partner (Residence) (Class BS) visa.

Senior Member A. Murphy
Statement made on 18 December 2024 at 12:48 PM
CATCHWORDS
MIGRATION – Partner (Residence) (Class BS) visa – Subclass 801 (Spouse) – genuine and continuing relationship – limited evidence but genuine relationship accepted – periods of living separately because of sponsor’s study and work experience placements – relationship ceased and non-judicially determined claim of family violence – verbal, financial, emotional and physical abuse – mental health – statutory declarations and reports from specified practitioners – report of independent expert – post-separation contact and hope for reconciliation – claim made four years after relationship ceased – alleged abusive behaviour did not cause applicant to reasonably fear for wellbeing or safety – opinion properly made and taken as correct – decision under review affirmed
LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958 (Cth), s 359A
Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth), rr 1.22, 1.23(10)(c)(i), 1.24, 1.25, Schedule 2, cl 801.221
CASE
Perez v MIBP [2017] FCAFC
STATEMENT OF REASONS
APPLICATION FOR REVIEW

The applicant is a citizen of Vietnam. He applied for Partner (Temporary) and Partner (Residence) visas on 20 April 2015 on the basis of his relationship with his sponsor, Mary Trang Nguyen, who is an Australian permanent resident (the sponsor).
The applicant was granted the Partner (Temporary) visa on 3 June 2015. This review application concerns the refusal by a delegate to grant the applicant the Partner (Residence) (Class BS) visa on 4 December 2019.
At the time the applicant applied for the visa, Class UK contained Subclass 801. The criteria for the grant of this visa are set out in Part 801 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994 (the Regulations).
In February 2017, the department requested information from the applicant in order to assess his application for the visa. The delegate’s decision records that the applicant provided information in response to this request on five occasions between 2017 and 2019. The delegate refused to grant the visa because the delegate was not satisfied that the primary visa applicant was the spouse of the sponsor as defined in the Migration Act 1958 (the Act) and Migration Regulations 1994 (the Regulations). For this reason the delegate considered that the applicant did not meet the requirements set out in cl 801.221 of the Regulations.
Before the Tribunal, the applicant maintained that he was in a spousal relationship with the sponsor at the time of the delegate’s decision. He gave evidence that his relationship with the sponsor ended in March 2020, claiming that he was the victim of non-judicially determined family violence perpetrated by the sponsor against him. In support of his claims he produced to the Tribunal a statutory declaration regarding his relationship with the sponsor as well as reports from a social worker and a psychologist in support of his claims.
The applicant first appeared before another member of this Tribunal on 31 July 2024 to give evidence and present arguments in support of his claims. Following the hearing, the Tribunal member referred the applicant’s non-judicially determined claims of family violence to an independent expert (IE) under reg 1.23(10)(c)(i) of the Regulations. The IE’s report was received by the Tribunal on 24 September 2024 and provided to the applicant in full on 1 October 2024.
Adverse information contained in the IE’s report was put to the applicant pursuant to s 359A of the Act on 24 September 2024. In summary, that adverse information was that the IE had considered the applicant’s claims of family violence, including claims of financial and verbal abuse, and had determined that the applicant was not the victim of family violence perpetrated by the sponsor.
On 8 October 2024, the applicant responded to the findings of the IE report and the Tribunal’s letter dated 24 September 2024. In summary it was submitted that the IE’s report overlooked critical legal principles established in Perez v MIBP [2017] FCAFC and that the Tribunal should determine that the applicant had in fact suffered family violence in the form of emotional, financial and physical abuse.
In the meantime, the Tribunal member originally constituted to conduct the review became unavailable to determine the matter and the review was reconstituted to me. The applicant appeared before me at a further hearing on 13 December 2024 to give evidence and present arguments. The Tribunal hearing was conducted with the assistance of an interpreter in the Vietnamese and English languages.
The applicant was represented in relation to the review.
For the following reasons, the Tribunal has concluded that the decision under review should be affirmed.
Issues for determination
In the circumstances of this particular case, the Tribunal is required to determine whether:
·     The applicant was in a spousal relationship with the sponsor as defined in the Act and Regulations;
·     Their relationship has ceased;
·     The applicant has suffered family violence; and
·     The alleged family violence occurred while the applicant was the spouse of the sponsor.
The spousal relationship
The Tribunal notes the delegate did not accept that the applicant was in a spousal relationship with the sponsor. In making that assessment, the delegate recorded that there was little evidence of joint financial assets or liabilities and the delegate was not satisfied they shared financial commitments, resources or household expenses. The delegate was also concerned that although the applicant and sponsor claimed to be living together in Sydney, the sponsor spent significant periods during their relationship living and studying in the Blue Mountains and working in Perth and Melbourne. The delegate expressed concerns that the social aspects of their relationship were not indicative of a genuine spousal relationship and was not satisfied that they viewed their relationship as a long-term one, that they drew emotional support and companionship from each other, or that they had a commitment to a shared life together.
The Tribunal has the benefit of information not available to the delegate, in particular the oral evidence given by the applicant about his relationship at two Tribunal hearings, as well as material contained in the family violence documents about the circumstances of the applicant and his sponsor. For the reasons that follow, the Tribunal finds that the applicant was in a spousal relationship with the sponsor prior to their relationship ceasing in March 2020.
Financial aspects of the relationship
The Tribunal notes that the applicant and his sponsor were young students when they commenced their relationship and considers that the financial aspects of their relationship are consistent with their stage of life. The sponsor was 17 years old when the relationship commenced and 18 years old at the time of their marriage, while the applicant was 8 years older than her and also a student. The couple had no significant joint assets or liabilities during their relationship but operated a joint bank account as well as personal bank accounts.
While the delegate was concerned that only the applicant’s wages were paid into that account, the sponsor was a student for most of their relationship and otherwise undertook periods of employment as part of her hospitality course. The applicant gave evidence that they set up the joint account on the advice of their agent at the time, and it was never a ‘must do’ thing that the sponsor pay her wages into that account so he didn’t ask her to do so. ATO records indicate that they both declared themselves as spouses in their dealings with the ATO.
The delegate was concerned that the sponsor’s education expenses appeared on the joint account statements only in December 2016 and March 2017, but the evidence is that the sponsor was undertaking employment relating to her studies in the second half of 2016 and 2017. The bank statements provided cover periods between 2015 and 2019 and record transactions of the kind that would be expected of two young people in their situation.
The Tribunal discussed with the applicant that most of the transactions appeared to have taken place in the western suburbs of Sydney rather than in the locations where the sponsor was living. The applicant stated that it was a long time ago and he can’t now tell who made what transactions and in any case the location of many transactions is not identifiable from the bank statements. While the evidence of the financial aspects of the relationship is not strong, the Tribunal considers it is broadly consistent with the financial circumstances of two young people still engaged in studies.
Nature of the Household
The delegate was concerned that although the applicant and sponsor claimed to have been living together at her family home, the sponsor lived in the Blue Mountains, Perth and Melbourne for significant periods during their relationship. However it is clear that the sponsor moved to the Blue Mountains during term times to undertake her hospitality studies and lived on campus during the college term as many young adults do. Her course required her to undertake work experience in the industry and she went to Perth and Melbourne to do so.
There is a very significant amount of correspondence and other documentation indicating that the sponsor and the applicant lived at two common addresses during their relationship, being an address in Marrickville from November 2014 to mid-2017 and then an address in Wiley Park between mid-2017 and early 2020. While little of that correspondence is addressed to them jointly, both of those addresses were homes owned or rented by the sponsor’s mother which they shared with the sponsor’s mother and brother. The Tribunal is mindful that sharing an address is not of itself indicative of a spousal relationship, but notes that the applicant and sponsor were married at the time. The Tribunal considers that the evidence about the nature of the household is consistent with the sponsor’s very young age and the couple’s financial circumstances.
The Tribunal accepts the applicant and sponsor lived together at two addresses with the sponsor’s mother and brother between November 2014 and March 2020 as claimed, except for periods the sponsor was living in campus or in Perth and Melbourne for work, in a manner that is consistent with a spousal relationship.
Social aspects and nature of the commitment
As observed by the delegate, there is relatively little evidence of the social aspects of the relationship. The applicant has provided evidence that he travelled with the sponsor to Vietnam in 2014/15 and 2018 and there are a significant number of photos of those trips although the Tribunal is unable to identify the persons in those photos, their locations or the dates on which they were taken. There are other photos showing the applicant and the sponsor at dinner on Sydney Harbour and in other locations that cannot be identified. The applicant submitted to the Department two Form 888 statements from the sponsor’s mother and a mutual friend and a further statutory declaration from a friend to the Tribunal.
The Tribunal is concerned that there is so little evidence of the social aspects of the relationship in a relationship that is claimed to have spanned more than six years. However the Tribunal has had regard to the circumstances in which that relationship ended and the fact that there is credible evidence they travelled together to Vietnam in each of 2014/15 and 2018. The Tribunal has also had regard to the statements from the IE and various other professionals who have provided evidence in the review, all of which have acknowledged the applicant’s genuine hurt and distress at the end of the relationship. The Tribunal notes the parties were married and March 2015 and the sponsor provided two statements to the department about her commitment to the relationship.
Viewed as a whole, the Tribunal considers the evidence as to the financial and social aspects of the relationship, the nature of the household and the nature of the commitment between the applicant and the sponsor are indicative of a spousal relationship.
The end of the relationship
The applicant claims that the relationship ceased in March 2020 when he was told by the sponsor and her mother to leave the apartment in which they were all residing. There being no evidence to the contrary, the Tribunal accepts that the relationship ended in March 2020.
Has a claim of family violence been made under the regulations?
Under reg 1.23, a visa application is taken to include a non-judicially determined claim of family violence where either a joint undertaking to a court has been made by the alleged victim and alleged perpetrator or evidence in accordance with reg 1.24 is provided.
The applicant in this case is seeking to rely on evidence referred to in reg 1.24 – namely, a statutory declaration under reg 1.25 and evidence of a type and number specified by the Minister for these purposes in the legislative instrument Migration (Specification of evidentiary requirements for family violence) Instrument (LIN23/026) 2023 (‘the Instrument’).
A statutory declaration under reg 1.25 must be made by the spouse or partner of the alleged perpetrator. If the alleged victim is the spouse or partner, the statutory declaration must set out the allegation of family violence, name the person alleged to have committed the relevant family violence and if the conduct was not directed at the spouse or partner, name the person to whom it is directed and their relationship with the deponent: reg 1.25(2). There are different requirements if the family violence is alleged to have occurred to another person: reg 1.25(3).
The applicant’s statutory declaration sets out the allegation of family violence and names his sponsor as the person alleged to have committed the alleged family violence. A report from a social worker dated 19 June 2024 records the allegation of family violence made by the applicant, names the sponsor as the perpetrator and concludes that the applicant experienced family violence. The applicant has also provided a report from a psychologist dated 24 June 2024 which records the allegation of family violence made by the applicant, names the sponsor as the perpetrator and concludes that the applicant experienced family violence. Therefore, the evidence presented meets the requirements of reg 1.24. As such, a non-judicially determined claim of family violence has been made under reg 1.23.
Has the applicant experienced family violence?
The applicant claims he was subjected to verbal, financial, emotional and physical abuse from the sponsor from approximately mid-2018 until the end of the relationship in March 2020. He claims that he was also subjected to post-separation family violence.
In summary the applicant alleges in his statutory declaration made 7 June 2024 that the applicant started to demand increased amounts of money from him in mid-2018, telling him she needed $2000 - $3000 per month to cover the couple’s groceries and her personal needs. When he told her they needed to save for their future she got angry, insulting him. He tried to comfort her and tried to give her $3000 in cash monthly because he wanted to see her smile. If he refused to do what she wanted, she would give him the silent treatment. The sponsor’s mother also harboured a deep-seated resentment towards him due to difficulties in her own marriage and would often criticise the applicant for being an unfaithful husband, not aimed directly at him but rather at the sponsor, causing conflicts between them.
The applicant alleges that in March 2020, the sponsor and her mother told him that they needed $30,000 in order to maintain the sponsorship or else they would report him to Immigration and have him deported. When the applicant declined, they became very upset and threw his clothes in the front yard and told him to leave. When he apologised they let him stay for two nights so he could find a new place to live and the relationship ended at that time.
The social worker and psychologist assessment reports submitted by the applicant each recount his family violence allegations in some detail, including an incident not mentioned by the applicant in his own statutory declaration in which it is alleged that around mid-2019 the sponsor slapped him on the face when he reminded her to be aware of her spending.
At a hearing before the previously constituted Tribunal member, the applicant gave evidence about the alleged family violence in a manner consistent with his statutory declaration made 7 June 2024. He referred to their disputes about money and his wish that the money in the joint account be saved for a house deposit in the future. He gave evidence about her increasing spending and criticism of him and said that he stopped wanting to go home and tried to work extra. He gave evidence about the request for $30,000, which he did not agree to pay, with the result the sponsor threw his clothes outside. He stated that he stayed an two extra days at the property before finding accommodation with a friend.
At the second Tribunal hearing before me the applicant said that while the IE concluded that he was not impacted by family violence, in reality he was physically and financially impacted. He said at the beginning of the relationship he gave the sponsor money voluntarily, but that she spent a lot of money. He said she put pressure on him and made him feel like a useless man who couldn’t look after her properly. He said that the sponsor compared him to her own father, telling him that her mother left her father because he couldn’t support her. He said he was very annoyed because he was a traditional husband who wanted a wife who looked after him and cared about him and he had not been involved in gambling or love affairs.
He said the sponsor’s words and actions hurt him a lot, he suffered from depression but felt couldn’t share this with anyone because they would think about him differently. He said he didn’t feel confident and he didn’t have the care from someone he really loved and had a lot of feelings for. He said the sponsor’s actions hurt him a lot and some time he wanted to not go to work so she could care for him. He recounted an incident where he fell over on the stairs, but the sponsor didn’t take care of him at all and the next day he went to work as usual. He said he never thought that his wife could change into someone who cared more about money that her husband’s health.
The Tribunal member who was previously constituted this review application sought the opinion of an independent expert, having apparently reached the view that they were not satisfied that the applicant had experienced relevant family violence.
The Tribunal as currently constituted has undertaken its own consideration of whether the applicant has experienced relevant family violence. In doing so it has considered the applicant’s statutory declaration and oral evidence given at the two Tribunal hearings as well as the social worker’s report and the psychologist’s report. The Tribunal has also considered the mental health care plan dated 20 December 2022 submitted by the applicant, which records that he sought help for depression, family break up and problems with his wife and mother-in-law. The Tribunal has had regard to the statements of The Thieu Nguyen and Mr Tien Quyet Nguyen dated 7 June 2024, which describes their observations about the couple’s relationship breakdown as well as the submissions made on behalf of the applicant about the alleged family violence.

The Tribunal accepts that the end of the relationship between the applicant and the sponsor was distressing and hurtful for the applicant. However having considered all of the evidence before it, the Tribunal is not satisfied for the purposes of reg 1.23 that the applicant has experienced relevant family violence.
At the time of referral to the IE, the IE was provided with copies of the delegate’s decision, the mental health care plan, the psychologist and social worker reports, the written statements of the applicant and the two witnesses dated 7 June 2024, the sponsor’s statements from 2015 and 2017 and the applicant’s statements from 2015, 2017 and 2024, the legal submissions of the applicant’s representative, requests for an extension of time and the hearing recording.
On 24 September 2024 the IE provided an opinion that the applicant had not experienced relevant family violence. In that report the IE recounted in detail the allegations of family violence made by the applicant and referred to each of the supporting documents lodged by the applicant in support of that allegation. The report stated that in the IE’s opinion, relevant family violence that causes the alleged victim to reasonably fear for, or to be reasonably apprehensive about, his or her own personal wellbeing or safety had not occurred.
In the reasons for that decision, the IE discussed each aspect of the alleged family violence including the alleged financial abuse, the alleged verbal abuse and one instance of alleged physical abuse. The IE stated that in her opinion, the alleged abusive behaviour did not cause the applicant to reasonably fear for, or to be reasonably apprehensive about, his own wellbeing or safety.
In relation to the alleged financial abuse, the IE recounted the applicant’s allegations at length. Her opinion of those allegations was that the sponsor’s alleged financial abuse did not cause the applicant to reasonably fear for, or to be reasonably apprehensive about, his own well being or safety and there was no indication that the sponsor had been coercively controlling in this regard. Rather she noted that the applicant had willingly provided his income to the sponsor, that his salary was deposited in the couple’s joint account and that he always had access to the account and to the money. The IE formed the opinion that the experiences the applicant had recounted were representative of marital discord and disagreement about finances and their differing expectations, considering that the applicant wanted to save money for a home while the sponsor wanted to spent money on purchasing personal items she deemed necessary for her work in the hospitality industry.
In relation to the verbal abuse alleged by the applicant, the IE formed the opinion that the experiences described by the applicant were representative of marital discord and differing expectations between the couple and differing styles in managing conflict. She also noted concerns regarding the timing of the claims, which were made four years after the end of the relationship. In the IE’s opinion the alleged verbal abuse did not cause the applicant to reasonably fear for, or to be reasonably apprehensive about, his own wellbeing or safety.
In relation to the alleged physical abuse, the IE considered the applicant’s allegation that the sponsor had on one occasion slapped him on the face during an argument about laundry, describing that slap as ‘not very hard’. The IE noted that he denied any threats were made by the sponsor and the IE formed the view that the applicant was embellishing these claims to make his allegation of family violence more likely to succeed. In the IE’s opinion the alleged physical abuse did not cause the applicant to reasonably fear for, or to be reasonably apprehensive about, his own wellbeing or safety.
The IE noted that the reports by the psychologist and the social worker were based on assessments made over four years after the relationship ended and for the sole purpose of providing an assessment report for the Tribunal proceedings. While the applicant consulted a GP in 2022 for his mental health, the GP recorded the reasons for the mental health care plan as ‘depression’ and ‘family break up’ but did not indicate the applicant had been the victim of family violence. The IE noted that the applicant had maintained contact with the sponsor for at least seven months post March 2020 and reported that he had hoped that he and the sponsor would reunite and was upset at the ending of his marriage.
As noted above, the IE’s report was provided to the applicant in full and the adverse information contained in that report was put to the applicant in writing on 24 September 2024 pursuant to the process set out in s 359A. In summary, that adverse information was that the IE had considered the applicant’s claims of family violence, including claims of financial and verbal abuse, and had determined that the applicant was not the victim of family violence perpetrated by the sponsor.
On 8 October 2024, the applicant responded to the findings of the IE report and the Tribunal’s letter dated 24 September 2024. The applicant responded by providing a statutory declaration in which he recounted his allegation of family violence and sought to highlight the impact it had had on his mental and emotional wellbeing. The applicant states that the IE’s opinion was not justified and that he struggled with recurring suicidal thoughts as a result of the overwhelming emotional and psychological harm caused by the abuse. He alleges that the abuse continued after the separation as on several occasions the sponsor contacted him and threatened to harm his reputation and made him feel that he would face consequences if he did not comply with her financial demands. He believes that the abuse he experienced after the relationship ended should be considered part of the broader pattern of family violence.
The applicant also provided further copies of the December 2022 mental health care plan and the psychologist and social worker reports that he had earlier provided to the Tribunal and which had formed part of the material included in the referral to the IE.
In a legal submission accompanying the applicant’s response to the IE report, it was submitted that the IE had overlooked critical legal principles established in Perez v MIBP [2017] FCAFC and that the Tribunal should determine that he had in fact suffered family violence in the form of emotional, financial and physical abuse.
In particular it was submitted that the IE had failed to understand that family violence is not limited to physical harm but includes emotional and financial abuse; that incidents of family violence occurring after the relationship has ended must still be considered when determining whether a person has suffered family violence and that the IE had erroneously focused on isolated incidents during the relationship and disregarded the broader pattern of coercive control and post-separation abuse.
It was also submitted that the IE failed to recognise that victims of family violence often delay seeking help due to fear, shame, manipulation or stigma and that the GP Mental Health Care Plan dated 20 December 2022 serves as strong evidence of his efforts to seek professional help after the family violence incidents as do his more recent diagnosis of severe anxiety, depression, and complex PTSD as set out in the psychologist’s report.
I do not accept that the IE’s consideration of the timing of the family violence claims is indicative of any failure to recognise or understand that victims of family violence often delay seeking help. The report demonstrates that the IE gave careful consideration to all of the information provided for that purpose, including her own discussions with the applicant, his various written statements and oral evidence, the GP Mental Health Care Plan and the psychologist and social worker’s reports submitted by the applicant. The IE’s report states that she conducted a face to face interview with the applicant which lasted for 2 hours and 45 minutes.
The IE noted correctly that the GP Mental Health Care Plan does not record that the applicant made allegations of family violence in 2022. Rather that plan records that the applicant sought help for depression, family break up and problems with his wife and mother-in-law. While such matters may in some cases be indicative of family violence, that is not necessarily the case. Similarly diagnoses of mental health conditions do not on their own indicate that the applicant has experienced relevant family violence.
I do not accept that the IE failed to consider that family violence can include emotional and financial abuse. Rather the IE discussed the allegations of financial abuse at length, concluding that the sponsor’s alleged financial abuse did not cause the applicant to reasonably fear for, or to be reasonably apprehensive about, his own well being or safety. The IE reported that there was no indication that the sponsor had been coercively controlling the applicant, rather she noted that the applicant had willingly provided his income to the sponsor because he considered it his duty to provide for her and he wanted her to be happy, that his salary was deposited in the couple’s joint account and that he always had access to the account and to the money. This is consistent with the evidence of the applicant at both Tribunal hearings.
The IE formed the opinion that the experiences the applicant recounted in his allegations of financial abuse were representative of marital discord and disagreement about finances and their differing expectations, considering that the applicant wanted to save money for a home while the sponsor wanted to spent money on purchasing personal items that she deemed necessary for her work in the hospitality industry.
Nor do I accept that the IE erroneously focused on isolated incidents during the relationship and disregarded the broader pattern of coercive control and post-separation abuse. The applicant’s statutory declaration made 7 June 2024 does not make any allegations of family violence occurring after the end of the relationship in March 2020. The social worker’s report records that contact ceased after the sponsor insisted that if the applicant couldn’t take care of her then she would have to find another man to do so and she demanded a divorce after getting involved with a different man around July 2022. The psychologist’s report makes no reference to any post-separation contact between the applicant and the sponsor.
The IE considered the medical reports and the information provided to her by the applicant at interview about the applicant’s post-separation contact with the sponsor, recording that the applicant stated that he maintained contact with the sponsor for at least seven months post March 2020 and reported that he had hoped that he and the sponsor would reunite and was upset at the ending of his marriage. The statements recorded in the IE report are consistent with the statements recorded in the social worker’s report, being that the applicant kept in touch with the sponsor in the hopes that the relationship could be repaired, but that when the applicant contacted the sponsor she was curt and dismissive.
Reg 1.23(10)(c)(ii) provides that the Minister (or Tribunal on review) must take an independent expert’s opinion on whether the alleged victim has suffered relevant family violence as correct for the purposes of deciding whether the alleged victim satisfies a prescribed criterion for a visa that requires the applicant for the visa (or another person mentioned in the criterion) to have suffered family violence. Once the Tribunal has determined that the expert’s opinion was properly made it is bound to accept it and find in accordance with it.
Having considered all of the issues raised in the applicant’s response to the IE report and its various attachments, the Tribunal is satisfied that the IE was provided with and considered all relevant materials and asked the correct question when she formed her opinion that the alleged abusive behaviour did not cause the applicant to reasonably fear for, or to be reasonably apprehensive about, his own wellbeing or safety.
The Tribunal is satisfied that the IE’s opinion is authorised by the Regulations, in that it is provided by an independent expert who is a person suitably qualified to make the assessment, is an employee of an organisation specified for this purpose, and was properly made. Under reg 1.23 the Tribunal is required to take as correct an independent expert’s opinion, properly made.
The Tribunal finds the independent expert’s report is properly made in accordance with the regulations. Accordingly, the Tribunal finds that the applicant is not taken to have experienced family violence committed by the sponsor for reg 1.22.
Given the above conclusion that the claim of family violence has not been established, the applicant does not meet the requirements of cl 820.221(3) for the grant of the visa. There is no evidence before the Tribunal that the applicant meets any of the alternative sub criteria contained in cl 820.221. As the applicant does not meet an essential criterion for the visa, the Tribunal must affirm the decision under review.
DECISION
The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicant a Partner (Residence) (Class BS) visa.
Date(s) of hearing: 31 July 2024 and 13 December 2024
Representative for the Applicant: Ms Jennifer Nguyen (MARN: 2117717)