Saadie (Migration) - [2024] ARTA 862

Saadie (Migration) [2024] ARTA 862 (19 November 2024)
DECISION AND
REASONS FOR DECISION
Applicant:Miss Hind Saadie
Visa Applicant:  Mr Ahmad Abdel Karim
Respondent:  Minister for Home Affairs
Tribunal Number:  2424710

Tribunal:General Member Kate Malyon
Place:Sydney
Date: 19 November 2024
Decision:The Tribunal remits the application for a Partner (Provisional) (Class UF) visa for reconsideration, with the direction that the visa applicant meets the following criteria for a Subclass 309 (Partner (Provisional)) visa:
·cl 309.211 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations; and,
·cl 309.221 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations.

I, General Member Kate Malyon, certify that this is

the Tribunal’s statement of decision and reasons.
Statement made on 19 November 2024 at 3:00 pm
CATCHWORDS
MIGRATION – Partner (Provisional) (Class UF) visa – Subclass 309 (Partner (Provisional)) – hearing expedited – genuine and continuing relationship – validly married in home country months being introduced and days after meeting in person – limited financial, social and household aspects of relationship while living in different countries – cultural expectations of husband (visa applicant) as financial provider – security and economic conditions in visa applicant’s home area – offers of employment in Australia – review applicant’s physical and mental health and sole parental responsibility for child from previous marriage – consistent oral evidence, statutory declarations, extensive documentation, supporting statements and detailed submission – satisfactory explanations for inconsistent evidence – decision under review remitted
LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss 5F(2), 65
Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth), r 1.15A(2), (3), Schedule 2, cls 309.211(2), 309.221

CASES
He v MIBP [2017] FCAFC 206
Jayasinghe v MIMA [2006] FCA 1700
Re MILGEA and Dhillon [1990] FCA 144
Singh v MIEA [1996] FCA 1429

Any references appearing in square brackets indicate that information has been omitted from this decision pursuant to an order under section 70 of the Administrative Review Tribunal Act 2024 and replaced with generic information.
STATEMENT OF REASONS
APPLICATION FOR REVIEW

This is an application for review of a decision made by a delegate of the Minister for Home Affairs on 11 June 2024 to refuse to grant the visa applicant a Partner (Provisional) (Class UF) Subclass 309 visa under s 65 of the Migration Act 1958 (the Act).
The visa applicant, Lebanese national Ahmad Abdel Karim, applied for the visa on 31 December 2022 on the basis of his relationship with the sponsor, Australian citizen Miss Hind Saadie. At that time, Class UF contained only one subclass: Subclass 309 Partner (Provisional). Criteria for the grant of this visa are set out in Part 309 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994 (the Regulations).
The delegate refused to grant the visa on the basis that Mr Abdel Karim did not satisfy

cl 309.211 and cl 309.221 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations. Whilst accepting that Mr Abdel Karim and Miss Saadie (hereinafter referred to as the couple) are married, the delegate was not satisfied Mr Abdel Karim had demonstrated that he is the ‘spouse’ of the sponsor as defined in s 5F of the Act. The couple did not have the benefit of professional advice at the time Mr Abdel Karim’s Subclass 309 visa application was lodged with and considered by the Department.
Miss Saadie seeks a review of the delegate’s decision. No documentation was lodged in support of the review application to address the delegate’s reasons for refusing Mr Abdel Karim’s visa application, apart from a copy of the delegate’s decision. Following constitution of the matter to the Member on 24 October 2024 and given Mr Abdel Karim’s current location in Lebanon, the matter was expedited and set down for hearing on 14 November 2024.
The Tribunal’s hearing invitation requested the couple provide a submission supported by probative evidence to address all of the delegate’s reasons for refusing Mr Abdel Karim’s Subclass 309 visa application at least 7 days prior to the hearing. On 6 November 2024, the representative requested additional time to provide documentation to address the delegate’s reasons for refusing Mr Abdel Karim’s Subclass 309 visa application. Further time was granted.
On 11 November 2024, the representative provided a detailed submission addressing the delegate’s reasons for refusing Mr Abdel Karim’s visa together with extensive additional documentation in excess of approximately 500 pages. Helpfully, the representative submitted an index of documentation provided with each of the pages numbered and links to all of the documentation. In relation to the multiple Statutory Declarations and supporting statements provided confirming the genuineness of the couple’s relationship, the representative also provided evidence of the declarant’s signature in the form of their driver licence or biodata page of their passport.
Hearing – 14 November 2024
Mr Abdel Karim appeared before the Tribunal on 14 November 2024 to give evidence and present arguments by way of teleconference. The Tribunal also received oral evidence from the sponsor Miss Saadie. In addition, oral evidence was received at the in-person hearing from Miss Saadie’s brother Ahmed Saadie, her father Ibrahim Saadie as well as her mother Ilhama (aka Alhama) Saadie. The hearing was conducted with the assistance of an interpreter in the English and Lebanese Arabic languages. Only Mr Abdel Karim used the services of the interpreter. The couple was represented in relation to the review by immigration lawyer Mr Noah Ali Khorami. Without exception, the Tribunal found all persons appearing before it to be credible witnesses. Evidence provided at the hearing is discussed below.
Both Miss Saadie and Mr Abdel Karim told the Tribunal that they urgently wish to have the review progressed so that they can resume living together and Mr Abdel Karim can be in Australia to support his wife, especially given her current medical condition, and help her look after her son Nabil. The couple also expressed concern regarding the current security position in Lebanon. Mr Abdel Karim told the Tribunal that he actually sees fighter jets flying from Israel down over the area where he and his parents live, which is an hour or so drive east of Tripoli. Israeli fighter jets have dropped explosive devices in Beirut on numerous occasions and even dropped one not far from where he and his parents live which killed multiple people.[1] He added that it is unclear whether the device which fell in his area east of Tripoli was purposeful or accidental given its remote location way north-east of Beirut.
[1] Deadly Israeli strike shatters sense of ‘safety’ in remote north Lebanon | Israel attacks Lebanon News | Al Jazeera; Israeli attack on town in Lebanon’s far north kills 14 people: Mayor | Israel attacks Lebanon News | Al Jazeera; Israeli strikes on north Lebanon and Gaza kill dozens, officials say; UN calls for investigation into deadly Israeli strike on north Lebanese village: Over 20 people killed in Israeli attack on north Lebanon | Middle East Eye; Lebanon: 24 people killed by Israeli bombing on northern town of Aitou
Miss Saadie and her family members attending the in-person hearing confirmed that they are well aware of these security issues in Lebanon. The situation has been acknowledged by the Australian Government since October 2023 in its travel advice informing Australians not to travel to Lebanon due to the volatile security situation.[2] It is causing extreme distress to Miss Saadie that her husband may be injured or killed. Miss Saadie told the Tribunal that she was going to spend time with her husband in October 2024 but her flight from Abu Dhabi to Beirut was cancelled by Etihad Airways because of the security situation in Lebanon. Evidence of Miss Saadie’s ticket booking and cancellation notification from Etihad Airways were provided to the Tribunal. In the circumstances, the couple formally requested the Tribunal to expedite its decision and thereby ensure that Mr Abdel Karim is able to join Miss Saadie and her son Nabil as soon as possible. The Tribunal agreed to the couple’s request, subject to receiving identified additional documentation from them.
[2] Lebanon Travel Advice & Safety | Smartraveller
On 19 November 2024, the representative provided further documentation to the Tribunal. Documentation provided is discussed below.
For the following reasons, the Tribunal has concluded that the matter should be remitted for reconsideration. It acknowledges that it has significantly more information than that which was available to the delegate at the time of their decision, in particular, oral evidence at the hearing as well as the extensive indexed and paginated documentation submitted prior to the hearing. It also notes that, as confirmed by the couple at the hearing, they did not have the benefit of any professional advice when Mr Abdel Karim lodged his Subclass 309 Partner visa application.
Background
The review applicant Miss Saadie is a 36-year-old Australian citizen who was born in Australia of parents with a Lebanese background. She married her first husband, Lebanese national Nouhad Chakouch, on 18 October 2008 and sponsored his residence in Australia as the holder of a Subclass 820 visa application. However, Miss Saadie divorced her first husband on 11 February 2016 as confirmed by the Divorce Order issued by the Federal Circuit Court of Australia provided to the Department. Miss Saadie has one child from her first marriage, a son named Nabil Chakouch who was born on [Date].
The visa applicant Mr Abdel Karim is a 38-year-old Lebanese national. Although in his interview on 14 June 2023 with a case officer he made reference to being briefly engaged in 2019 to an Australian woman - Amina Kanj - for about a month, he clarified later in the interview that he was really just dating her and they did ‘not sign any book’. After dating Amina Kanj for a month, Mr Abdel Karim told the Tribunal that they broke up. In her interview with the case officer, Miss Saadie stated she was aware that her husband had briefly dated Amina Kanj. In the circumstances, the Tribunal accepts that Mr Abdel Karim has not disclosed any previous spousal or de facto relationships as those terms are defined in the Regulations.
Both Mr Abdel Karim and Miss Saadie stated in the application that they were introduced through Mr Abdel Karim’s younger sister Fatima Abdel Karim who lives in Sydney. The opportunity arose when Mr Abdel Karim’s mother Wadha Arabi Abbas was visiting Australia in 2022 for a post-COVID-19 pandemic catchup with her daughter Fatima Abdel Karim when the Australian and Lebanese borders reopened. Fatima Abdel Karim took her mother Wadha Arabi Abbas to meet up with Mr Amine Kamal El-Dine, who comes from the same village in Lebanon as Mr Abdel Karim and is a good friend of his. Coincidentally, Amine Kamal El-Dine is married to Miss Saadie’s sister Noura and so Miss Saadie also happened to be at the get-together.
Fatima Abdel Karim asked Miss Saadie if she would be happy to talk to her brother Mr Abdel Karim. Miss Saadie gave Fatima Abdel Karim her phone number and Mr Abdel Karim called her for the first time on 15 June 2022. They talked for about 4 months on a regular basis and it became increasingly apparent to the couple after just 2 months that their relationship had become deeper. As explained by Mr Abdel Karim, he made it clear from the outset that he was seeking marriage as things were tough in Lebanon. Miss Saadie independently confirmed this information to the Tribunal as she, too, was looking for a kind person to spend the rest of her life with and to have someone to share taking responsibility for her son Nabil following her divorce from her first husband. After casual chats for a couple of months, the couple really connected and started to talk about living together.
Arising from their regular WhatsApp communications, the couple planned to meet up and did so on 20 October 2022 when Miss Saadie flew to Lebanon. Her mother had already gone back to Lebanon to visit family and friends. The couple met at Beirut airport and, after reflecting on their relationship to date, they decided to commit to each other for a lifelong relationship. They were married just a couple of days later on 24 October 2022. As confirmed by information on the couple’s Marriage Certificate, in attendance at the Sunnite Muslim ceremony were Mr Abdel Karim’s father and Miss Saadie’s grandfather. To celebrate their wedding, the couple had a small gathering with family and friends that evening as confirmed by the photographic evidence lodged with the Department and the additional photographic evidence provided to the Tribunal. Subsequently, on 30 October 2022 they went to Turkey for a week-long honeymoon.
After the wedding, the couple lived at Mr Abdel Karim’s family’s home for a fortnight before Miss Saadie returned to Australia to look after her son. On 15 August 2023, she went to live in Lebanon with her husband for 3½ months and was accompanied by her son Nabil Chakouch.
CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMIS AND EVIDENCE
The issue in the present case is whether Mr Abdel Karim and Miss Saadie were in a genuine spousal relationship both at the time of application and at the time of this decision. Relevant provisions of the Act and the Regulations referred to in this decision are set out in the Attachment to the decision.
In making its decision, the Tribunal has regard not only to information in the Department and Tribunal files but also oral evidence at the hearing. The Tribunal acknowledges that Mr Abdel Karim’s visa application was lodged on 31 December 2022 and that the review application was lodged with the Tribunal on 24 July 2024 following the delegate’s refusal on 11 June 2024. It also notes that the Tribunal has prioritised processing applications for persons affected by the ongoing conflict in the Middle East and that since 19 October 2023 the Government has advised Australians not to travel to Lebanon due to the volatile security situation and the risk of it deteriorating further.[3] The Tribunal has had the benefit of receiving substantially more evidence than that which was available to the delegate, including oral evidence at the hearing as well as the documentation submitted by the representative prior thereto.
[3] Ibid
Having regard to the extensive evidence provided, the Tribunal finds that the couple gave wholly consistent oral evidence regarding the circumstances in which they met, the nature of their relationship and their living arrangements when they lived together in Lebanon for 3 weeks following their marriage there and for 3½ months from 15 August 2023. Oral evidence from Miss Saadie and Mr Abdel Karim was given in an open and forthright manner, and is consistent with documentation previously provided to support Mr Abdel Karim’s Subclass 309 visa application. The Tribunal acknowledges Miss Saadie’s reluctance to give oral evidence given her depression, anxiety as well as stress and the other medical conditions confirmed by Dr Tashnim Harun of the Ayar Medical Centre in Chester Hill in the signed letter dated 7 November 2024 provided prior to the hearing. However, it notes she proactively engaged with the Tribunal and had the benefit of evident support from her close family members who also attended the hearing.
The delegate expressed concern regarding the rapid development of the couple’s relationship, the overall absence of documentation to address any of the legislative requirements and a number of inconsistencies arising from the interview conducted with Mr Abdel Karim having regard to other information lodged with the Department. However, the parties were able to satisfactorily explain to the Tribunal during the course of the hearing the circumstances that led to their initial communication with each other, their forming a relationship and then committing to their marriage before Miss Saadie travelled to Lebanon for their wedding. The Tribunal found the couple’s evidence to be consistent, clear and compelling.
Are the parties in a spousal relationship?
Clause 309.211(2) of Schedule 2 to the Regulations requires that, at the time the visa application was made, Mr Abdel Karim was the spouse or de facto partner of an Australian citizen or Australian permanent resident or an eligible New Zealand citizen. With limited exceptions that only apply in relation to a decision to grant or not grant a Subclass 309 visa made on or after 20 August 2022, the visa applicant Mr Abdel Karim must continue to be the spouse or de facto partner at the time of the Tribunal’s decision: cl 309.221 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations. In the present case, Mr Abdel Karim claims be the spouse of the sponsor, Australian citizen Miss Saadie.
The word ‘spouse’ is defined in s 5F of the Act and provides that a person is the spouse of another where the 2 persons are in a married relationship. Persons in a married relationship must be married to each other under a marriage that is valid for the purposes of the Act. There must also be a mutual commitment to a shared life as a married couple to the exclusion of all others, the relationship must be genuine and continuing, and the couple must live together, or not live separately and apart on a permanent basis: s 5F(2)(a) - s 5F(2)(d) of the Act.
In forming an opinion about these matters, regard must be had to all of the circumstances of the relationship. This includes evidence of the financial and social aspects of the parties’ relationship as well as the nature of the visa applicant’s and the sponsor’s household and their commitment to each other as set out in reg 1.15A(3) of the Regulations. These provisions are extracted in the Attachment to this decision. Each of the specific matters contained in reg 1.15A(3) of the Regulations are effectively questions which must be answered by the decision-maker: He v MIBP [2017] FCAFC 206 at paras [76] – [77]. The Tribunal’s assessment of whether the claimed relationship involves a ‘mutual commitment to a shared life’ requires an assessment of the subjective intentions of the parties: Singh v MIEA [1996] FCA 1429 at [13].
Relevant to its review of the delegate’s refusal of Mr Abdel Karim’s Subclass 309 visa application, the Tribunal notes the following comments of Middleton J in Jayasinghe v MIMA [2006] FCA 1700 at para [35]:
Evidence of events subsequent to the visa application is relevant if it ‘tends logically to show the existence or non-existence of facts relevant to the issue to be determined’: see Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs v Pochi (1980) 4 ALD 139 at 160 per Deane J. The Tribunal must consider all relevant evidence, which may include evidence of events subsequent to the date of application insofar as it assists in the task of determining whether the appellant and the sponsor were in a marriage relationship at the time of the application. The question of whether particular evidence is relevant and the weight it is to be given is clearly a matter for the Tribunal.
Further, the Federal Court has accepted in Re MILGEA and Dhillon [1990] FCA 144 that people enter marriages with a variety of purposes and motives, hopes and aspirations: it is not necessarily inconsistent with the genuine spousal relationship that a couple’s marriage was entered into by one or both parties with a view to material benefit, such as the hope of becoming eligible to reside in a particular country. As noted by the court, the “true test, we would suggest the only test, is whether at the time the matter has to be decided it can be said that the parties have a mutual commitment to a shared life of husband-and-wife to the exclusion of others”.
In deciding this matter, the Tribunal has had regard not only to evidence lodged with the Department but also evidence provided to the Tribunal, including oral evidence at the hearing.
Are the parties validly married?

If the parties are validly married, they may meet the requirements of a married relationship, but not a de facto relationship.
Based on the certified Marriage Certificate Registration lodged with the Department, the Tribunal is satisfied that Mr Abdel Karim and Miss Saadie signed the religious marriage contract in town of Syr in the El Minieh El Dannieh District on 24 October 2022 and that their marriage was registered on 26 October 2022 with the Lebanese Ministry of Interior and Municipalities Directorate General for Personal Status. The Department’s file contains photographs of the couple’s wedding celebrated with family and friends. Further copies were provided to the Tribunal. There is nothing to suggest that the couple’s marriage is not valid.
Having regard to the evidence provided, the Tribunal accepts - as did the delegate - that the parties were married to each other under a marriage that is valid for the purposes of

s 5F(2)(a) of the Act at the time of application and that they continue to be married to each other as at the time of this decision.
Are the other requirements for a spousal relationship met?
The next issue for consideration is whether the parties meet the other requirements of a spousal relationship.
In forming an opinion on the matters required in s 5F(2)(b) - s 5F(2)(d) of the Act, regard must be had to all of the circumstances of the claimed relationship. This includes the factors identified in reg 1.15A(3) of the Regulations and any other circumstances relevant to the relationship under reg 1.15A(2) of the Regulations. The factors in reg 1.15A(3) of the Regulations are: the financial aspects of the relationship; the nature of the household; social aspects of the relationship; and the nature of the persons’ commitment to each other.
The Tribunal acknowledges there is a substantial amount of documentary evidence of the couple’s relationship that was not before the delegate. The Tribunal has given this evidence, and oral evidence at the hearing, due regard.
Financial aspects of the relationship: reg 1.15A(3)(a)
When considering the financial aspects of the claimed spousal relationship, the Tribunal is required to have regard to: the joint ownership of assets; any joint liabilities; the extent of pooling of financial resources; any legal obligations owed to the other party; and the sharing of day-to-day household expenses.
As noted in the delegate’s decision, a copy of which was provided to the Tribunal, no evidence whatsoever was provided to the Department regarding the financial aspects of the couple’s claimed spousal relationship. This was despite the delegate’s s 56 request for information to address this requirement.
The Tribunal accepts that, essentially, the couple live in different countries, although Miss Saadie did relocate with her (then) 12-year-old son Nabil to live in Lebanon for 3½ months from 15 August 2023.
The representative submits that the delegate’s decision relies heavily on assumptions that are culturally and economically grounded in Australian norms, such as the common practice of joint ownership of assets, joint liabilities and pooling of financial resources and the ability to jointly invest or enter into a joint mortgage or other loan arrangements. He adds that these assumptions do not reflect the reality of life in Lebanon which is primarily cash-based, bank accounts are restricted and joint bank accounts are extremely rare to non-existent. While the Tribunal accepts, having regard to its personal experience of living in Jakarta for 4 years, that cultural aspects of a couple’s relationship can, and do, vary depending on a variety of factors including their geographic location and religion, it does not accept the representative’s submission as the requirements for consideration by the Tribunal are clearly set out in reg 1.15A(3)(a) of the Regulations.
The Tribunal accepts that in Middle Eastern and Muslim cultures, a husband is traditionally seen as the primary financial provider in a marriage and this cultural expectation emphasises it is the husband’s role to cover household expenses and ensure financial stability for the family. It also accepts the representative’s submission that, in this case, Mr Abdel Karim has assumed this role by paying for wedding expenses including video expenses, purchasing jewellery and covering the costs of the couple’s honeymoon to Turkey, including flights and related hotel expenses. Evidence of Mr Abdel Karim covering all of these expenses was lodged with the Department and further copies were provided to the Tribunal.
In addition, and as set out in the couple’s Marriage Contract dated 24 October 2022 provided to the Department, Mr Abdel Karim undertook to provide Miss Saadie with a piece of land measuring 500 m² located in the region of Izaf, Al Akabat. As explained by the representative, this is consistent with the cultural norm of the traditional ‘Mahr’ or dowry, which is a fundamental aspect of marriage in Middle Eastern and Islamic cultures. The Tribunal notes that the Statutory Declaration provided by Miss Saadie’s uncle Issam Saadieh, a lawyer who is based in Tripoli, dated 28 December 2022 and lodged with the Department confirms that he met Mr Abdel Karim when he came with his parents to meet Miss Saadie’s family in Tripoli and ‘they offered as dowry a piece of land’. He adds that this is ‘a valuable asset’ and it is a ‘sign of sincerity and fidelity’. The Tribunal has been provided with evidence of the transfer in Arabic (together with a certified copy English translation thereof) of the 500 m² plot of land within the Izaf region from Mr Abdel Karim’s father’s estate to Miss Saadie on 15 November 2022. The representative submits, and the Tribunal accepts, that Mr Abdel Karim’s documented dowry arrangement confirming transfer of the land to Miss Saadie is tangible evidence of Mr Abdel Karim’s financial contribution and commitment to his wife, thereby reinforcing the authenticity of the couple’s relationship.
In summary, while acknowledging that Mr Abdel Karim and Miss Saadie are not able to provide joint financial resources or shared liabilities due to their living in different countries and economic constraints impacting Lebanon, the representative submits, and the Tribunal accepts, that Mr Abdel Karim’s adherence to cultural norms - as evidenced by transferring land from his father’s estate to his wife as well as his financial support of the couple’s wedding - confirms his sincere commitment to his wife.
Miss Saadie confirmed at the hearing that she currently receives a Disability Support Pension from Centrelink given that her medical condition precludes her from undertaking ongoing regular work. She lives in social housing accommodation provided by the NSW Department of Communities and Justice Housing Commission, and has done so since the breakdown of her first marriage. The Tribunal accepts that, when Mr Abdel Karim arrives in Australia, he will financially support his wife and her son.
During the hearing, the Tribunal discussed his plans for work in Australia. Whilst noting the couple have considered the possibility of his taking on work as a Wall and Floor Tiler to work with his friend Amine Kamal El-Dine, the Tribunal observed Mr Abdel Karim’s signed Form 80 Personal Particulars for assessment including character assessment submitted with his visa application states he has worked in the Lebanese Army as a Chef for nearly 6 years from January 2010 to November 2015 and, prior to this, had worked in a restaurant as a waiter for 3 years. The Tribunal opined that both the occupation of Wall and Floor Tiler as well as Chef are on the Department’s Medium and Long-term Strategic Skills List.[4]
[4] Skilled occupation list
During the hearing, Ibrahim Saadie told the Tribunal that his son-in-law is a workaholic and, accordingly, her family have no concerns whatsoever in relation to Mr Abdel Karim’s ability to financially support his daughter and his grandson following Mr Abdel Karim’s arrival in Australia. He added that, to the extent required, Miss Saadie’s family would help out the couple. The Tribunal notes that each of his wife and his son ‘totally’ agreed with this comment during the hearing. Furthermore, in a Statutory Declaration dated 18 November 2024 provided after the hearing, Ibrahim Saadie confirms that he has discussed his son-in-law’s employment prospects in Australia on several occasions and, relevantly, he has many connections such that he will be able to assist him secure employment in Australia.
After the hearing, Mr Abdel Karim provided evidence of his qualifications as a Chef issued by the Lebanon’s Directorate General of Vocational & Technical Education on 16 August 2005. His qualification in Arabic was provided with a NAATI accredited certified copy translation thereof dated 11 November 2024. In the circumstances, the Tribunal does not anticipate he will have difficulties securing employment in Australia to support his wife and her son Nabil.
Also provided to the Tribunal after the hearing was a signed and witnessed statement from Bilal Kamal Eldine dated 18 November 2024 confirming that he is the proprietor of the Quick Shawarma restaurant located in Guildford. He confirms that he knows Mr Abdel Karim from their time together as they are from the same village in Lebanon and that he is looking forward to Mr Abdel Karim working with his business as a Chef, once he arrives in Australia. Publicly available information confirms that Quick Shawarma has been voted the best Shawarma in Sydney.[5]
[5] "Quick Shawarma Guildford". Best Shawarma in Sydney by far. #youtubevideos #yt #youtuber #foodie - YouTube
Based on the evidence provided, the Tribunal is satisfied that the financial aspects of the relationship of Mr Abdel Karim and Miss Saadie are indicative of a couple in a spousal relationship, both at the time of lodgement of the visa application and at the time of this decision, particularly having regard to the cultural aspects of the couple’s relationship referred to by the representative.
Nature of the household arrangements: reg 1.15A(3)(b)
The Tribunal is required to consider the nature of the parties’ household including: any joint responsibility for the care and support of children; their living arrangements; and any sharing of responsibility for housework.
Whilst the delegate accepted that Mr Abdel Karim and Miss Saadie resided together exclusively from 26 October 2022 to 22 November 2022 and resumed living together from 15 August 2023 to 28 November 2023, no evidence had been provided to demonstrate that they share household responsibilities.
It is acknowledged that the couple currently live in separate countries. Miss Saadie and Mr Abdel Karim independently confirmed that, following their wedding, they moved into a vacant home owned by Mr Abdel Karim’s family. This is the same home that Miss Saadie and her son stayed at when they went to live in Lebanon for 3½ months from mid-August 2023. Photographs of the home were provided after the hearing.
A number of the couple’s family and friends who have visited them when they were living together in Lebanon confirm that they visited the couple at the house where they lived together. Prior to the hearing, written statements have been provided from:
1)Rakel Sabra dated 8 November 2024. Ms Sabra is family friend who lives in South Granville, Sydney but she returns to Lebanon a regular basis to meet family and friends. She visited the couple at their home for a family barbecue. A copy of Ms Sabra’s NSW driver licence was also provided to confirm her signature;
2)Khadija Kamal El-Dine dated 11 November 2024. Ms El-Dine knows the couple through her brother Amine Kamal El-Dine, that is, Mr Abdel Karim’s friend from the same village who is married to Miss Saadie’s sister Noura. Khadija Kamal El-Dine confirms that she has spent several evenings with the couple at their home in Lebanon;
3)Miss Saadie’s mother Ilhama Saadie, who attended the hearing and gave oral evidence. She and Miss Saadie’s brother Ahmed Saadie described the house the couple were living in as being ‘similar to a Queenslander’ with a space under the house for storage and cars. When Ilhama Saadie was in Lebanon in 2022, during which time the couple were married, she visited them at the house that they were living in. She also told the Tribunal that Mr Abdel Karim’s parents were living only a couple of minutes away and she would go and visit them as well; and,
4)Mr Issam Saadieh, Miss Saadie’s uncle, who is a solicitor based in Tripoli. He provided a Form 888 dated 28 December 2022 lodged with the Department attesting to the genuineness of the couple’s spousal relationship.
After the hearing, the representative also provided a handwritten statement from Mr Abdel Karim’s father, Mohamed Ahmad Abdel Karim, dated 14 November 2024 confirming that the couple lived in his spare property, which happens to be a few minutes away from their house. He confirms that the couple lived there after their wedding on 24 October 2022 and then, following their honeymoon in Turkey, for the 3½ months when Miss Saadie and her son Nabil came back to Lebanon to live with their son Mr Abdel Karim.
In addition, the representative provided a bundle of further statements from family and friends in Lebanon confirming the genuineness of the couple’s relationship and the fact that they visited them at the house that they were living in in Lebanon. Details are set out in para [62] below. Also provided was a signed statement from Ammar Sabra, the Mayor of Bkaasafrine, dated 24 October 2024. Mr Sabra confirms he knows each of the couple and that they resided together in what he calls their ‘marital house’ in Bkaasafrine.
Having regard to the evidence provided, including oral evidence at the hearing, the Tribunal is satisfied that the nature of the couple’s household at the time of application is indicative of a couple in a spousal relationship at the time of lodgement of Mr Abdel Karim’s Subclass 309 visa application and that this continues to be the case at the time of this decision.
Social aspects of the relationship: reg 1.15A(3)(c)
In its consideration of the social aspects of the parties’ relationship, the Tribunal is required to consider: whether the parties represent themselves to other people as being married to each other; the opinion of friends and acquaintances about the nature of the relationship; and any basis on which the persons plan and undertake joint social activities.
The delegate noted the couple had provided limited photographs of them as a couple, or with friends and family on different occasions. Whilst acknowledging that the couple had provided some photographs of their wedding ceremony and reception which was attended by both families, the delegate noted the absence of convincing evidence to show that they present themselves as a married couple to family and friends. Forms 888 were provided by Miss Saadie’s uncle Issam Saadieh based in Lebanon, dated 28 December 2022, and Mr Abdel Karim’s long-standing friend Mr Kamal El-Dine, dated 15 December 2022. As noted above, it was during the time Mr Abdel Karim’s mother and his sister Fatima Abdel Karim visited Mr Kamal El-Dine’s home in Guildford that Miss Saadie provided her telephone number to Fatima Abdel Karim which resulted in the couple touching base for the first time on 15 June 2022 using WhatsApp.
The Tribunal has been provided with independent evidence confirming that, after their marriage, the couple lived in Mr Abdel Karim’s family’s spare home for a week before they honeymooned in Turkey. They returned to live together at the property in Lebanon for a fortnight before Miss Saadie had to return to Australia to look after her son. Just 9 months later, Miss Saadie and her (then) 12-year-old son went to live with Mr Abdel Karim in Lebanon for 3½ months from mid-August 2023.
During the hearing, the Tribunal noted the Divorce Certificate provided in relation to Miss Saadie’s first marriage does not indicate that she has sole custody of her son Nabil as claimed in multiple documents lodged with the Tribunal. After the hearing, the representative provided a copy of the Federal Circuit Court of Australia’s Terms of Settlement made between Miss Saadie and her first husband confirming that Miss Saadie has sole parental responsibility for her son Nabil Chakouch and that he will live with his mother. The Tribunal opined during the hearing that, having regard to the fact that Nabil travelled with his mother to Lebanon in August 2023 to meet up with and live with his stepfather, it is evident her husband and her son clearly have an engaged relationship. It acknowledged the sentiments expressed in Nabil’s handwritten letter lodged with the Department. He states that:
‘I’ve always wanted a father that treats me good and loves me but, sadly, since I was a child, I never got to feel that fatherhood around me. Since my Mum got married on 24 October 2022 he has been the best father I could ask for. He treats me like his own son and we have a very strong connection together.
Prior to the hearing, the representative provided further photographic evidence of the couple together and also with family and friends. Miss Saadie and her mother took the opportunity during the hearing to caption number of the photographs identifying the names of family members and friends in the photographs the parties together with the couple and their relationship either Miss Saadie or Mr Abdel Karim.
Since Miss Saadie and her son have returned to Australia, the couple independently confirmed that Nabil regularly joins them on their WhatsApp communications as confirmed by evidence lodged with the Tribunal. The Tribunal accepts that Mr Abdel Karim proactively engages with Nabil and, despite the fact that they live in separate countries, he plays a supporting and active role in Miss Saadie’s son’s day-to-day living experiences including his education. Mr Abdel Karim told the Tribunal that he loves to take Nabil to the beach and, when his wife and Nabil lived with him in late 2023, he would often take Nabil to Tripoli to enjoy swimming in the ocean there. Photos of Mr Abdel Karim together with Miss Saadie and her son Nabil at the beach in Tripoli were provided to the Tribunal.
In relation to the couple’s living arrangements while living together in Lebanon, the couple independently confirmed at the hearing that they shared all of the household duties including cooking, cleaning and maintaining the yard. The Tribunal acknowledges evidence received from family and friends who live nearby in Lebanon or from those who visited the couple at the home occupied by them during Miss Saadie’s visits to Lebanon.
The Tribunal has been provided with the following updated signed statements and Forms 888 from multiple family members and friends of Miss Saadie who warmly attest to the couple’s genuine and enduring spousal relationship. Also provided has been evidence of the validity of the person’s signature in the form of their Australian passport and/or their NSW driver licence:
1)Statutory Declaration from Ilhama Saadie, Miss Saadie’s mother, sworn 9 November 2024;
2)Statutory Declaration from Samiha Saadie, Miss Saadie’s younger sister, sworn 9 November 2024;
3)Statutory Declaration from Noura Saadie, Miss Saadie’s youngest sister, sworn 9 November 2024;
4)Statutory Declaration from Amine Kamal El-Dine sworn 11 November 2024. Mr Kamal El-Dine is married to Miss Saadie’s youngest sister Noura Saadie and, further, his sister in Lebanon is married to Mr Abdel Karim’s brother;
5)Statutory Declaration from Al Charma, a relative and friend of Miss Saadie who has known her since childhood, sworn 11 November 2024;
6)Statutory Declaration from Michael Saadien, a paternal uncle of Miss Saadie, sworn 11 November 2024;
7)Statement of Nada Kanj, Miss Saadie’s aunt who has known her since the day she was born, dated 8 November 2024;
8)Statement of Nazreen Kanj, Miss Saadie’s cousin who grew up with her, dated 8 November 2024;
9)Statement from Darine Saadieh, a relative of Miss Saadie who has known her since they were youngsters together, dated 8 November 2024;
10)Statement from Said Abdul Rahman, a family friend of Miss Saadie who has known her since she was a child, dated 8 November 2024;
11)Statement from Sabah Hamze, a family friend of Miss Saadie who has known her for over 10 years, dated 8 November 2024; and,
12)Statement from Rakel Sabra, a family friend of Mr Abdel Karim who met Miss Saadie for the first time when Rakel Sabra made her most recent visit to Lebanon, dated 8 November 2024.

The Tribunal has also been provided with updated signed statements (in Arabic together with a certified NAATI accredited English translation thereof) from the following of the couple’s family members and friends, all of whom currently live in Lebanon and who warmly attest not only to the couple’s genuine and enduring spousal relationship but also the fact that they visited the couple at their home in Lebanon:
1)Khadija Kamal El-Dine, sister of Amine Kamal El-Dine and Inshirah Kamal El-Dine. Ms Kamal El-Dine has provided 2 statements. As noted above, her first statement dated 11 November 2024 was provided prior to the hearing. Her the second statement dated 17 November 2024 was provided after the hearing;
2)Mohamed Abdel Karim, father of Ahmed Abdel Karim, dated 14 November 2024. He confirms that the couple lived at his spare property when they were together following their marriage and again for 3½ months in late 2023. Mohamed Abdel Karim’s Identity Card provided confirms that he lives in the village of Syr in the locality of Bkaasafrine;
3)Maysaa Jebara, Miss Saadie’s sister. The undated statement provided after the hearing confirms that she visited her sister many times at her house when Maysaa Jebara was living in Australia;
4)Mahmoud Saadieh, Miss Saadie’s uncle, dated 17 November 2024. He confirms that the couple’s wedding ceremony was held at his house where his father - Miss Saadie’s grandfather – also lives. He attached captioned photographs of the couple in their wedding attire together with him and Miss Saadie’s grandfather as well is a photograph taken at a dinner after the couple’s honeymoon together with his wife and his son;
5)Saddieh El Drayhi, the wife of Mahmoud Saadieh and, therefore, Miss Saadie’s uncle dated 17 November 2024; and,
6)Inshirah Kamal El-Dine, the sister of Amine Kamal El-Dine and Khadija Kamal El-Dine, dated 11 November 2024. She attached multiple captioned photographs of her siblings together with Miss Saadie at the couple’s wedding as well as photographs after the wedding of the couple together with her extended family, including her child.
Evidence of the person’s signature as confirmed in their Lebanese Identity Card or Lebanese passport has also been provided.
Without exception, all of the statements from family members in Lebanon confirm that the person making the statement visited the couple during their time together in Lebanon, initially for their wedding and, subsequently, for the couple’s 3½ months together with Miss Saadie’s son Nabil in late 2023.
After the hearing, the representative provided evidence of Miss Saadie’s communications with Centrelink in relation to notifying Centrelink of her marital relationship. The representative confirms Miss Saadie’s evidence at the hearing that she was advised her marriage cannot be formally entered into Centrelink’s system until her husband arrives in Australia.
Having regard to evidence provided, in particular, the Forms 888 and Statements referred to above as well as the captioned photographs provided, the Tribunal is satisfied that the parties represent themselves to other people as being married to each other and that the social aspects of the relationship support a finding that they are in a genuine spousal relationship.
Nature of the persons’ commitment to each other: reg 1.15A(3)(d)
In its consideration of the nature of the persons' commitment to each other the Tribunal is required to consider: the duration of the relationship; the length of time the parties have lived together; the degree of companionship and emotional support they draw from each other; and, whether they see the relationship as long term.
The delegate found that, having reviewed documentation provided and whilst accepting that there are no concerns regarding the exclusivity of Miss Saadie’s relationship with Mr Abdel Karim and that they provided overall consistent information about their future, concerns were identified regarding the genuineness of the couple’s claimed spousal relationship arising from essentially 3 issues: the rapid development of the relationship; the limited evidence of phone calls between the couple including the absence of any indication of the date and duration of the call; and, inconsistencies in the interviews conducted on 14 June 2023 with each of Mr Abdel Karim and Miss Saadie by a case officer. The delegate’s decision, a copy of which was provided to the Tribunal, identified the following inconsistencies in the interviews conducted:
1)Mr Abdel Karim had initially stated in his interview that he was not previously engaged but then later said that he was engaged to an Australian girl for about a month in 2019. He said he did not mention this earlier because the relationship was for such a short period and he did not think it was worth talking about it;
2)Miss Saadie stated that her husband’s friend Mr Amine Kamal El-Dine (that is, her sister Noura’s husband) had set up the meeting at his home in Guildford which was attended by Mr Abdel Karim’s mother and his sister Fatima Abdel Karim as well as Miss Saadie herself, because he saw that his friend Mr Abdel Karim could be a future husband of Miss Saadie. However, this contradicted Mr Abdel Karim’s statement during his interview that the visit was not pre-arranged by his friend: rather, his mother and sister had arranged the relationship introduction by talking to Miss Saadie;
3)during his interview, in response to the request to explain his decision to marry in a relatively short period of time, Mr Abdel Karim was unable to explain in convincing detail how such limited contact and time spent together led to the decision to enter into a marital relationship with Miss Saadie. He noted throughout the interview his interest in migrating to Australia, especially having regard to the economic situation in Lebanon. During her interview, Miss Saadie said her husband wanted to marry someone living in Australia because he believes the country is good to live in; and,
4)whilst acknowledging that there was evidence of WhatsApp chat and video calls between the parties, the chat logs contained little conversation commensurate with that of a genuine couple and no evidence had been provided of the date and duration of each call.
Each of Mr Abdel Karim and Miss Saadie have provided the Tribunal with statements addressing the delegate’s concerns regarding their commitment to each other. The Tribunal accepts that Mr Abdel Karim’s relationship with another woman for just a month is irrelevant in terms of the couple’s claimed spousal relationship given the passage of time and the length of their relationship. It also accepts that there are different perspectives in relation to the nature of Mr Abdel Karim’s mother and sister meeting up with Miss Saadie at the home of his friend Amine Kamal El-Dine. Further, the Tribunal accepts Mr Abdel Karim was interested in migrating to Australia, as many Lebanese nationals have been since the mid-1970s. It acknowledges dicta in the Federal Court of Australia’s decision in Re MILGEA and Dylan referred to above that people enter marriages for a variety of purposes and motives, hopes and anticipations so that it is not possible to classify some purposes etc as according to what may be described as community expectations. This recognises the cultural issues referred to by the representative. As noted by the Federal Court, the only test is whether the parties have a mutual commitment to a shared life as husband-and-wife to the exclusion of others. Based on evidence provided, in particular, oral evidence at the hearing, the Tribunal accepts this so in this case.
In addition, the Tribunal notes it has been provided with multiple statements from family members and friends regarding the genuineness of the couple’s ongoing relationship. In addition, independent oral evidence from Mr Abdel Karim and Miss Saadie during the hearing confirm the mutual support provided to each other to date. The Tribunal has been also provided with sample evidence of their communications using WhatsApp confirming contact between 15 June 2022 to 6 November 2024. It acknowledges, as did the delegate, that many of the communications do not indicate the duration of the telephone calls or provide the full text of messages between the couple.
The Tribunal notes that some of the text messages are in the Arabic language and, as discussed at the hearing, would not be considered as translations into English have not been provided. Review of the communications records provided confirms that, commencing 28 February 2024, the duration of telephone calls has been recorded. The records provided confirm the couple routinely have 2 – 4 calls per day varying in duration from 2 minutes to 60 minutes. Some days – for example, 1 March 2024 – record 3 calls totalling 84 minutes. It is clear to the Tribunal that the couple engage proactively on a daily basis in regular communications and that, as confirmed at the hearing, Miss Saadie’s son Nabil also joins in on many of these communications when he is not at school.
Relation to the couple’s future plans, Miss Saadie and Mr Abdel Karim gave independent evidence at the hearing that they would like to have children together and thereby enable Nabil to have siblings.
The Tribunal acknowledges discussions between Mr Abdel Karim and his wife’s family members in Sydney, in particular her father Ibrahim Saadie, about his employment prospects once he arrives in Australia and, thereby, his ability to financially support his wife and her son Nabil. As noted above, a signed letter dated 18 November 2024 has been provided from Bilal Kamla Eldine confirming he is looking forward to Mr Abdel Karim working in his business Quick Shawarma as a Chef. It also notes Mr Abdel Karim’s discussions with his friend Amine Kamal El-Dine who has also provided a signed letter confirming that, as the owner of the King Tyler business, he too would be interested in offering Mr Abdel Karim a job once he arrives in Australia. The Tribunal accepts that Mr Abdel Karim has made genuine inquiries about pursuing employment opportunities to support his family in Australia.
Based on evidence provided, the Tribunal is satisfied that the couple have been in a spousal relationship at least since their marriage was solemnised on 24 October 2022 and celebrated with a small family gathering later that day. After their short honeymoon in Turkey, Miss Saadie travelled back to Australia before returning to Lebanon together with her son to live with her husband for 3½ months from 15 August 2023. Having regard to the multiple statements from family and friends, the Tribunal accepts the mutual love and support Mr Abdel Karim and Miss Saadie have provided to each other and that they have a genuine commitment to their ongoing relationship.
The Tribunal accepts the claims of Miss Saadie that, since her return to Australia on 28 November 2023, her husband has provided her with strong ongoing emotional support. It accepts that this is mutual. The Tribunal also accepts that the couple see their relationship as long term. The Tribunal is satisfied of the couple’s enduring and long-standing commitment to each other.
The Tribunal accepts the couple’s relationship is long term and that they rely on each other for companionship and emotional support. The Tribunal is satisfied that the nature of the parties’ commitment to each other is indicative of a couple in a spousal relationship at the time of lodgement of Mr Abdel Karim’s Subclass 309 visa application and, further, that they continue to be in a spousal relationship at the time of this decision.
Conclusion
Having regard to the decision in Jayasinghe v MIMA [2006] FCA 1700 and Re MILGEA and Dhillon [1990] FCA 144 referred to above at paras [2X] and [2X], and based on the evidence provided as to the financial and social aspects of the couple’s relationship as well as the nature of their household arrangements and their strong commitment to each other, the Tribunal is satisfied that, at the time of application, Mr Abdel Karim and Miss Saadie were in a genuine spousal relationship and, at the time of this decision, this continues to be the case. It is also satisfied that the couple do not live separately and apart on a permanent basis. Having regard to the above, the Tribunal is satisfied that the requirements of s 5F(2) of the Act are met at the time the visa application was made and at the time of this decision.
Therefore, Mr Abdel Karim meets cl 309.211 and cl 309.221 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations.
Given the findings above, the appropriate course is to remit the application for the visa to the Minister to consider the remaining criteria for a Subclass 309 visa.
DECISION
The Tribunal remits the application for a Partner (Provisional) (Class UF) visa for reconsideration, with the direction that the visa applicant Mr Abdel Karim meets the following criteria for a Subclass 309 (Partner (Provisional)) visa:
·cl 309.211 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations; and,
·cl 309.221 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations.
Kate Malyon

General Member
Date(s) of hearing:  14 November 2024
Representative for the Applicant:           Mr Noah Ali Khorami
ATTACHMENT - Extracts from Migration Act 1958 and Migration Regulations 1994
Migration Act 1958
…
5F Spouse
(1)    For the purposes of this Act, a person is the spouse of another person (whether of the same sex or a different sex) if, under subsection (2), the 2 persons are in a married relationship.
(2)    For the purposes of subsection (1), persons are in a married relationship if:
(a)     shoot they are married to each other under a marriage that is valid for the purposes of this Act; and
(b)    they have a mutual commitment to a shared life as a married couple to the exclusion of all others; and
(c)     the relationship between them is genuine and continuing; and
(d)    they:
(i)live together; or
(ii)do not live separately and apart on a permanent basis.
(3)    The regulations may make provision in relation to the determination of whether one or more of the conditions in paragraphs (2)(a), (b), (c) and (d) exist. The regulations may make different provision in relation to the determination for different purposes whether one or more of those conditions exist.
Note: Section 12 also affects the determination of whether the condition in paragraph (2)(a) of this section exists.

Migration Regulations 1994
…
1.15ASpouse
(1)For subsection 5F (3) of the Act, this regulation sets out arrangements for the purpose of determining whether 1 or more of the conditions in paragraphs 5F(2) (a), (b), (c) and (d) of the Act exist.
(2)If the Minister is considering an application for:
(a)a Partner (Migrant) (Class BC) visa; or
(b)a Partner (Provisional) (Class UF) visa; or
(c)a Partner (Residence) (Class BS) visa; or
(d)a Partner (Temporary) (Class UK) visa;
the Minister must consider all of the circumstances of the relationship, including the matters set out in subregulation (3).
(3)The matters for subregulation (2) are:
(a)the financial aspects of the relationship, including:
(i)       any joint ownership of real estate or other major assets; and
(ii)      any joint liabilities; and
(iii)     the extent of any pooling of financial resources, especially in relation to major financial commitments; and
(iv)    whether one person in the relationship owes any legal obligation in respect of the other; and
(v)     the basis of any sharing of day‑to‑day household expenses; and
(b)the nature of the household, including:
(i)       any joint responsibility for the care and support of children; and
(ii)      the living arrangements of the persons; and
(iii)     any sharing of the responsibility for housework; and
(c)the social aspects of the relationship, including:
(i)       whether the persons represent themselves to other people as being married to each other; and
(ii)      the opinion of the persons’ friends and acquaintances about the nature of the relationship; and
(iii)     any basis on which the persons plan and undertake joint social activities; and
(d)the nature of the persons’ commitment to each other, including:
(i)       the duration of the relationship; and
(ii)      the length of time during which the persons have lived together; and
(iii)     the degree of companionship and emotional support that the persons draw from each other; and
(iv)    whether the persons see the relationship as a long‑term one.
(4)If the Minister is considering an application for a visa of a class other than a class mentioned in subregulation (2), the Minister may consider any of the circumstances mentioned in subregulation (3).
…
Schedule 2 - Subclass 309 -- Partner (Provisional)

309.1--Interpretation

309.111 In this Part:
"intended spouse" means the person referred to in subparagraph 309.211(3)(a)(i), (ii) or (iii).
Note: eligible New Zealand citizen and guardian are defined in regulation 1.03, parent is defined in subsection 5(1) of the Act (also see regulation 1.14A), de facto partner is defined in section 5CB of the Act (also see regulation 1.09A), and spouse is defined in section 5F of the Act (also see regulation 1.15A).
309.2 - Primary criteria
309.21 - Criteria to be satisfied at time of application
309.211 (1) The applicant meets the requirements of subclause (2) or (3).
(2) The applicant meets the requirements of this subclause if the applicant is the spouse or de facto partner of:
(a) an Australian citizen; or
(b) an Australian permanent resident; or
(c) an eligible New Zealand citizen.
(3) The applicant meets the requirements of this subclause if:
(a) the applicant intends to marry:
(i) an Australian citizen; or
(ii) an Australian permanent resident; or
(iii) an eligible New Zealand citizen; and
(b) the intended marriage will, if it takes place, be a valid marriage for the purposes of section 12 of the Act.
Note: If the applicant is an applicant referred to in subclause 309.211(3), the marriage must have taken place before the applicant can be granted a visa of this subclass: see clause 309.224.

309.212 (1) The spouse, de facto partner or intended spouse of the applicant is not prohibited by subclause (2) from being a sponsor.
(2) The spouse, de facto partner or intended spouse is prohibited from being a sponsor if:
(a) the applicant is a male person; and
(b) the spouse, de facto partner or intended spouse is a woman who was granted a Subclass 204 (Woman at Risk) visa within the 5 years immediately preceding the application; and
(c) on the date of grant of that visa:
(i) the applicant was a former spouse or former de facto partner of that woman, having been divorced or permanently separated from that woman; or
(ii) the applicant was the spouse or de facto partner of that woman and that relationship had not been declared to Immigration.
309.213 (1) If the applicant is an applicant referred to in subclause 309.211(2), the applicant is sponsored:
(a) if the applicant's spouse or de facto partner has turned 18--by that spouse or de facto partner; or,
(b) if the applicant's spouse has not turned 18--by a parent or guardian of that spouse who:
(i) has turned 18; and
(ii) is an Australian citizen, an Australian permanent resident or an eligible New Zealand citizen.
(2) If the applicant is an applicant referred to in subclause 309.211(3), the applicant is sponsored:
(a) if the applicant's intended spouse has turned 18--by that intended spouse; or
(b) if the applicant's intended spouse has not turned 18--by a parent or guardian of that intended spouse who:
(i) has turned 18; and
(ii) is an Australian citizen, an Australian permanent resident or an eligible New Zealand citizen.
…
309.22 - Criteria to be satisfied at time of decision
309.221 The applicant continues to satisfy the criterion in clause 309.211.
309.222 The sponsorship referred to in clause 309.213 has been approved by the Minister and is still in force.
Note: Regulations 1.20J, 1.20KA and 1.20KB limit the Minister's discretion to approve sponsorships.
309.223 In the case of an applicant who meets the requirements of subclause 309.211(2), the applicant continues to be the spouse or de facto partner of the person referred to in paragraph 309.211(2)(a), (b) or (c) who was the applicant's spouse or de facto partner at the time of the application.
309.224 If the applicant is an applicant referred to in subclause 309.211(3), the marriage referred to in that subclause has taken place and the applicant continues to be the spouse of the intended spouse.
309.225 The applicant:
(a) satisfies public interest criteria 4001, 4002, 4003, 4004, 4007, 4009, 4020 and 4021 ; and
(b) if the applicant had turned 18 at the time of application -- satisfies public interest criterion 4019.
309.226 If the applicant has previously been in Australia, the applicant satisfies special return criteria 5001 and 5002.
309.228 (1) Each member of the family unit of the applicant who is an applicant for a Subclass 309 visa is a person who:
(a) satisfies public interest criteria 4001, 4002, 4003, 4004, 4007, 4009 and 4020; and
(aa) if the person had turned 18 at the time of application, satisfies public interest criterion 4019; and
(b) if the person has previously been in Australia, satisfies special return criteria 5001 and 5002.
(2) Each member of the family unit of the applicant who is not an applicant for a Subclass 309 visa is a person who:
(a) satisfies public interest criteria 4001, 4002, 4003 and 4004; and
(b) satisfies public interest criterion 4007, unless the Minister is satisfied that it would be unreasonable to require the person to undergo assessment in relation to that criterion.
309.229 If a person (in this clause called the additional applicant):
(a) is a member of the family unit of the applicant; and
(b) has not turned 18; and
(c) made a combined application with the applicant-- public interest criteria 4015 and 4016 are satisfied in relation to the additional applicant.
oOOo