Sukhvinder Singh (migration) - [2025] ARTA 446

Sukhvinder Singh (migration) [2025] ARTA 446 (18 March 2025)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division
APPLICANT:  Mr Sukhvinder Singh
REPRESENTATIVE:  Mr Nigel James Dobbie
CASE NUMBER:  2320347
HOME AFFAIRS REFERENCE(S):          BCC20142255721
MEMBER:Linda Holub
DATE:18 March 2025
PLACE OF DECISION:  Sydney
DECISION:The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicant a Partner (Residence) (Class BS) visa.

Statement made on 18 March 2025 at 3:01pm

CATCHWORDS
MIGRATION – Partner (Residence) (Class BS) visa – Subclass 801 (Spouse) – relationship has ended – financial aspect of the parties’ relationship – not satisfied the evidence provided supports a claim that a genuine and continuing relationship existed between the applicant and his former sponsor – not satisfied that the applicant and the sponsor were ever in a genuine relationship – decision under review affirmed

LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958, ss 5, 65, 359, 376
Migration Regulations 1994, Schedule 2, cl 801.221

CASES
He v MIBP [2017] FCAFC 206

STATEMENT OF DECISION AND REASONS

APPLICATION FOR REVIEW

1. This is an application for review of a decision made by a delegate of the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs on 13 November 2019 to refuse to grant the applicant a Partner (Residence) (Class BS) visa under s 65 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (the Act).

2. The applicant applied for a Combined Partner (UK-820/801) visa on 9 September 2014 on the basis of his relationship with his then sponsor an Australian citizen, Chantelle Galloway. The applicant was granted a Partner (Temporary) (Class UK) (Subclass 820) on 28 October 2015.

3. At the time of application, the Class BS 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 (Cth) (the Regulations).

The primary criteria must be satisfied by at least one applicant. Other members of the family unit, if any, who are applicants for the visa need satisfy only the secondary criteria. Relevantly to this matter the primary criteria include cl 801.221 which requires the applicant to be the spouse or de facto partner of the sponsor, unless the relationship has ceased, and certain circumstances exist. These include that the applicant, or a member of the family unit, has suffered family violence committed by the sponsor: cl 801.221(6)(b), (c)(i). The applicant claims this occurred in this case.

5. The applicant was refused a (Partner (Residence) (Class BS) (Subclass 801) visa on 13 November 2019 on the basis he did not meet cl 801.221 because the delegate found that the applicant was not in a genuine and continuing relationship with his sponsor as is required under sections 5F(2)(c) and 5CB(2)(b) of the Act. Accordingly, the delegate was not satisfied that the applicant is the spouse or de facto partner (as defined) of his sponsor and was therefore not satisfied that he meets subclause 801.221(2) of the Regulations. As a result, the delegate concluded the applicant does not meet the legislative requirements for the grant of a subclass 801 visa as specified in clause 801.221 of the Regulations.

6. In making these finding, the delegate wrote:

“I have taken into account all the information available to me. I find on balance the weight of evidence does not support a finding that you and your sponsor have resided together and are in a genuine and continuing relationship at the time of this decision. I do not consider the nature of the household or the financial, social or commitment aspects of your relationship as being indicative of a couple with a genuine and mutual commitment to a shared life. I am led to conclude that the evidence before me has been manufactured to support the visa application and that it is not a genuine reflection of the true nature of your relationship with your sponsor.”

7. An application for review was lodged at the Tribunal on 27 November 2019.

On 14 October 2024, the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) became the Administrative Review Tribunal (the Tribunal). Under the transitional provisions in the Administrative Review Tribunal (Consequential and Transitional Provisions No. 1) Act 2024 (the Transitional Act), applications for review to the AAT that were not finalised before 14 October 2024 are taken to be an application for review to the Tribunal. The Transitional Act gives the Tribunal the authority to continue and finalise any aspect of the review not already completed by the AAT. This decision and statement of reasons is made by the Tribunal.

9. The matter is before the Tribunal because of a Court order as outlined below.

The applicant appeared before the Tribunal on 15 January 2025 to give evidence and present arguments. The Tribunal also received oral evidence by telephone from three of his friends as witnesses.
The applicant was represented in relation to the review. His legal representative attended the hearing.
For the following reasons, the Tribunal has concluded that the decision under review should be affirmed.

CASE HISTORY

The applicant first came to Australia on a Higher Education Sector ((TU-573) visa on 9 June 2008 and was subsequently granted several Vocational Education And Training Sector (subclass TU-572) visas and bridging visas before lodging the Partner visa application.
In lodging the application, the parties claimed they met in May 2014 and shortly after the sponsor commenced living with the applicant. They provided a copy of a marriage certificate showing they married on 26 August 2014. The parties wrote that the applicant proposed to the sponsor on 24 July 2014 after returning from India where he had gone to attend his brother’s wedding. Information before the Tribunal is that he departed Australia on 16 June 2014 and returned on 6 July 2014.

First Tribunal review

In the context of the first review of the Department’s refusal, the Tribunal wrote to the applicant on 31 August 2022 pursuant to section 359(2) of the Act inviting him to provide information by 14 September 2022. The letter explained that it is a requirement for the grant of the visa that at the time of visa application, and at the time of the decision, he is the spouse or de facto partner of the sponsoring partner, unless one of the following exceptions apply:
• the death of the sponsoring partner
• family violence
• certain court orders or responsibilities in relation to children.
The applicant was invited to provide information in writing that may indicate he is the spouse or de facto partner of the sponsoring partner at present, or alternatively, information that he believes may be relevant to the exceptions. Following a request for additional time to respond, the applicant was granted an extension of two weeks to respond. The applicant did not further respond.
The Tribunal again wrote to the applicant on 15 December 2022 inviting him to comment on or respond to certain adverse information about his relationship with his former sponsor. The letter explained that information being put to him could be the reason, or a part of the reason, for affirming the decision under review. He was provided until 29 December 2022 to respond. The letter outlined that given his former sponsor advised the Department that she had withdrawn her sponsorship of your visa application in June 2021, that he could nevertheless be granted the visa if one of exceptions referred to above applied. The letter explained that if he wished to make claims in relation to family violence the requirements for doing so were set out in an attachment to the letter.
The applicant was also invited to comment or respond to adverse information that was on the Department’s file regarding allegations made to the Department on 5 and 13 December 2018 and on 26 March 2020. The letter informed him that the Department had issued a number of section 376 certificates and outlined information about those certificates. The applicant was informed that he had until 29 December 2022 to respond to those matters. On 19 December 2022 the applicant was provided with copies of the certificates, and he was given until 3 January 2023 to respond to the Tribunal about those matters. On 21 December 2022 the applicant responded that he “acknowledges that”.
The Tribunal affirmed the Department's decision to refuse the applicant a Partner (Residence) (class BS) visa on 21 December 2022.
Following an appeal made by the applicant to the Federal Circuit and Family Court, the matter was remitted to the Tribunal for reconsideration.

Second Tribunal review

On 25 November 2024 the applicant was invited to a hearing scheduled on 15 January 2025. On 16 December 2024 the applicant responded indicating he would attend the hearing and provided the names of three witnesses. On 27 December 2024 submissions were provided as follows:
·Statutory declaration of the applicant dated 24 January 2025 claiming he was a victim of family violence perpetrated against him by his former sponsor.
·Opinion of registered social worker, Carolyn Biggs, dated 29 January 2024, opinion of registered psychologist, Philip Wolfers, dated 2 February 2024 regarding his claims of family violence.
·Witness statements of Meenakshi Srinivas, Srinivas Srinivas, dated 20 December 2024 and Jasvinder Singh, dated 23 December 2024.
·A copy of a car insurance policy of the applicant and his former sponsor dated 23 August 2022.
·A copy of an ANZ Bank statements of the applicant and his former sponsor from July to November 2021.
·A copy of QBE Insurance tax invoice for the applicant dated 6 June 2021.
·A copy of HBF Insurance membership information for the applicant’s former sponsor dated 2 August 2021.
·Evidence of Australian Super membership information for the applicant’s former sponsor dated 29 August 2021.
·A copy of iPrimus Tax Invoice addressed to the applicant dated 15 March 2022 for an address in Prospect.
·Copies of Alinta Energy electricity bills in the name of the applicant’s former sponsor for the periods 15 September 2021 to 15 December 2021 and 16 December 2021 to 18 March 2022 for an address in Prospect.
·Copies of ATO Notices of Assessment for the applicant’s former sponsor for the financial years ending 2020 and 2021.
·A copy of ANZ Bank Statement of Account for Benlee Logistic Services Pty Ltd from 8 November to 3 December 2021.
·A copy of a rental receipt for the applicant and his former sponsor dated 19 November 2021 for an address in Prospect.
·Various photographic submissions of the parties.
·Various company documents in relation to Benlee Logistic Services Pty Ltd, home loan application and a number of other documents that are referred to as “documents of support after separation.”
A submission dated 2 January 2025 was provided to the Tribunal outlining a number of matters. It was submitted that the applicant suffered family violence from his then sponsor and that the delegate’s decision should be set aside, and the application be remitted for further determination.
On 7 January 2025 the Tribunal requested the applicant provide it with a copy of his divorce certificate prior to the hearing scheduled for 15 January 2025. It was provided the following day.

CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE

Whether the parties are in a spouse or de facto relationship

Relevantly to this matter, cl 801.221(2)(c) requires that at the time of this decision, the applicant is the spouse of the ‘sponsoring partner’, who must be an Australian citizen or Australian permanent resident or an eligible New Zealand citizen who was specified in the related Subclass 820 visa application as the spouse or de facto partner of the applicant. In the present case the applicant claims to be the spouse of the sponsor who is an Australian citizen and was identified in the Subclass 820 visa application. On the evidence before it, the Tribunal is satisfied that the sponsor is the ‘sponsoring partner’ of the applicant.
‘Spouse’ is defined in s 5F of the Act and provides that a person is the spouse of another where the two persons are in a married relationship. Persons in a married relationship must be married to each other under a marriage that is valid for the purposes of the Act, there must be a mutual commitment to a shared life as a married couple to the exclusion of all others, the relationship must be genuine and continuing, and the couple must live together, or not live separately and apart on a permanent basis: s 5F(2)(a) - (d). In forming an opinion about these matters, regard must be had to all of the circumstances of the relationship. This includes evidence of the financial and social aspects and the nature of the visa applicant’s and sponsor’s household and their commitment to each other as set out in reg 1.15A(3), which is extracted in the attachment to this decision. Each of the specific matters contained in reg 1.15A(3) are effectively questions which must be answered: He v MIBP [2017] FCAFC 206.

Are the parties validly married?

If the parties are validly married, they may meet the requirements of a married relationship, but not a de facto relationship. The Department was provided with a copy of the applicant’s marriage certificate showing he and his then sponsor registered their marriage on 26 August 2014. On the evidence, the parties were married to each other under a marriage that is valid for the purposes of the Act as required by s 5F(2)(a).

Are the other requirements for a spouse relationship met?

At the hearing, the Tribunal explained that it must first decide if a genuine relationship existed between the applicant and his former sponsor, despite the fact that the Department granted him a Partner (Temporary) (subclass UK-820) visa.
The Tribunal told the applicant it acknowledges that the visa application was lodged not long after he and his sponsor met and married and therefore understood that the body of evidence would be quite limited as a result. Nevertheless, the Tribunal explained he made a number of claims about the relationship and provided some evidence at the time of the original application in September 2014. He was told the Tribunal had a number of questions in relation to that evidence.

Background

The applicant stated he first came to Australia to study and that he completed a Diploma in Hospitality Management and an Advanced Diploma in accounting. He stated he worked as a driver. One of his brothers resides in Australia and also works in transportation. His mother, two sisters and his other brother live in India. His mother has visited Australia on two occasions.

Issues raised with the applicant

The Tribunal explained to the applicant that his former sponsor withdrew her sponsorship notifying the Department of this on 16 and 17 June 2021. Her emails stat they were divorced and she referred to him as her ex-husband. The Tribunal put it to the applicant that it could see no record in the Department’s files or in the Tribunal’s files that he notified the Department or the Tribunal that the relationship had ended.
The applicant responded that he was not aware that his former sponsor had withdrawn her sponsorship. He stated she was doing an online parenting course in March 2022 and told him she wanted to apply for divorce. I noted the fact that the divorce certificate indicates that the divorce took effect on 10 June 2022 so the application would have to have been lodged 12 months prior to that. The applicant responded that his former sponsor told him it does not make any difference what date they put on the form, and it can be backdated. I asked for a copy of the divorce application to be provided to the Tribunal following the hearing.
I referred to information available on the website of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia which states:
“You need to satisfy the Court that you and your spouse have lived separately and apart for at least 12 months, and there is no reasonable likelihood of resuming married life. It is possible to live together in the same home and still be separated. This is known as being separated but living under one roof”[1].
[1] See: Divorce Overview, at Divorce: Overview | Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia, accessed on 8 January 2025.
The Tribunal put it to the applicant that he seemed to be saying that they had been separated for approximately three months but that he provided false information in a legal document to the Court about the date of separation. He responded that he had little alternative because he was concerned that she would block him seeing “his kid.”
The Tribunal referred to the correspondence between it and the applicant in the context of the first review on 31 August 2022 and noted that he had not responded and asked him why. He stated that he was under a lot of stress at the time. He stated that on 10 September 2022 he found out from his lawyer that his former sponsor had never been pregnant, (despite claims she had made) and he did not know what to do and could not get in contact with the psychologist he had previously seen. When asked why he did not seek additional time to obtain whatever medical or other evidence he required, he responded that his psychologist had retired, and he did not know what to do and he “did not get much support” from his previous lawyer.
The Tribunal went onto refer to the fact that days later his previous lawyer was no longer representing him, and that the Tribunal wrote to the applicant himself on 15 and 19 December 2022. The applicant stated that he was lost at that time.
The Tribunal put it to him that his explanation appears at odds with the fact that several days later on 28 December 2022 he appealed the Tribunal’s decision in the Federal Circuit and Family Court and asked him why he did not respond to the Tribunal. The applicant stated he was not sleeping well and was depressed and there was “too much going on.” He stated that someone advised to seek advice from another lawyer.
The Tribunal pointed that his engagement with the Tribunal during the course of the first review was discourteous and of concern.
The Tribunal explained to the applicant that the various allegations that had been made had been put to him and noted that he had not responded at the time nor had any submissions been made in the context of the new review. The Tribunal further explained that it was not required to put them to him a second time.
The Tribunal offered the applicant an adjournment to discuss the allegations and the section 376 certificates that had been provided to him in December 2022. At 10.36 am the Tribunal held a short adjournment. Upon reconvening the applicant started to address the withdrawal of his sponsorship. The Tribunal explained to him that it was referring to the allegations that had been made about the relationship not about the sponsor’s withdrawal of his application. The Tribunal agreed to a further short adjournment at 10.44am.
Upon resuming the applicant stated he denies the allegations and referred to some elements of them. He stated the house he lived in did not have five bedrooms, but rather it was a one-bedroom house. He stated there is no proof he was married in India. I noted that the allegation was that he was engaged, rather than married. He responded it is a baseless allegation. He stated that couples sometimes have arguments but that does not mean they want to break up. He stated their landlady did not want them to move out but she was also renting her place through Airbnb his sponsor and landlady had various disagreements.
The Tribunal referred the s.376 certificates and asked the applicant if he would like his representative to comment on those. His legal representative agreed with the Tribunal’s findings on the certificates as outlined in its correspondence to the applicant of 15 December 2022 that the certificates are valid and the information to which they relate are relevant to the decision as they are relate to matters regarding his relationship with his former sponsor.

In relation to the emails of 16 June and 17 June 2021 from the applicant’s sponsor withdrawing her sponsorship, the applicant stated she never told him about them. He stated she had anger issues. He stated that when they were going to apply for a home loan, she had a part-time cleaning job. He stated he told her she would need to get a full-time job, but she did not like the work, so she was upset with him. He stated she likes to do things her own way but eventually she listened to him, and he got her a job.
The applicant stated the relationship ended in December 2021. He stated Ms Galloway found the lawyer to help them apply for the divorce in March 2022. He stated he objected to backdating the divorce application, but she told him it doesn’t make any difference. He agreed with her because she was pregnant. The Tribunal put it to him that he seems to have falsified information in a legal matter. He responded that if he didn’t agree she would block him from seeing his child.
Referring to comments in the sponsor’s emails to the Department of 16 and 17 June 2021 in which she wrote that she “does not have the TRN[2] or FRN[3] number as he won’t give me that” and she “cannot get the TRN”, I put it to the applicant that it sounds like he was deliberately thwarting the sponsor’s ability to withdraw her sponsorship. He responded that he never had a conversation like this. He stated she had access to his phone. When I asked him if he could offer any explanation as to why she would make such statements, he responded that she wanted them to obtain a home loan but there were difficulties because he was not an Australian citizen, and she did not want to work full-time and had problems. He stated she had a very bad temper and he stopped trying to advise her. She was frustrated and told him she wouldn’t be relying on him but after about two months she accepted what he said. He stated she may have emailed the Department during that period withdrawing her application.
[2] A Transaction Reference Number (TRN) is provided when a person lodges an application using an ImmiAccount. Every application lodged in ImmiAccount is given a unique number, which is the TRN. It can be used to manage and track applications and change details and to check visa entitlements. See: Track your application using ImmiAccount, accessed on 23 January 2025.
[3] A FRN is a File Reference Number (FRN) See: You want to withdraw an application, accessed on 23 January 2025.

ASSESSMENT OF THE RELATIONSHIP

Commitment

The Tribunal has considered the nature of persons' commitment to each other, including duration of the relationship, the length of time they have lived together; the degree of companionship and emotional support they draw from each other; and whether they see the relationship as long-term.
In the visa application both the applicant and his former sponsor wrote in the same terms that they are genuinely committed to each other and bonded with love and that even before they got married they were behaving like a married couple and took their relationship very seriously. They wrote they have a lot of future plans for their family and that they have a common vision of having a family home and a family in future.
The applicant and sponsor wrote they met in May 2014 through their common friend Anita who they both used to visit very often. After they were introduced to each other they used to meet regularly at Anita's place and have BBQs with other friends. They would talk for hours and started to develop feelings for each other. After a few meetings they started dating and fell in love.
The statements also explain that when the applicant went to India for his brother's wedding for a few weeks they missed each other and when he returned he told her his family was planning to get him married to someone in his community she was devastated. She revealed her feelings for him and on 24 July 2014 he proposed to her. They married on 26 August 2014 and went to New Zealand for their honeymoon.
At hearing the applicant confirmed written claims that he met his former sponsor in May 2014 through their mutual friend, Anita Devi. He stated that they started dating in May / June. After he returned from his brother’s wedding in India he proposed. He confirmed that they had mobile phone and text message contact from that time and when he went to India they used WhatsApp.
The Tribunal referred to the evidence provided to the Department of his mobile phone log and a list of messages between him and his former sponsor. In doing so, I confirmed the mobile phone numbers provided at the time of application for both him and his former sponsor. I noted that the first time the former sponsor’s mobile number appears in his phone log was on 25 July 2014 and that this coincides with the first message in the log of messages. He responded that they used Whatsapp, particularly while he was overseas. He stated that the sponsor was spending a lot of time at Jensen Street and that he was working 8-10 hours a day and that because of their working hours they did not message each other very much.
The Tribunal told the applicant that regardless of the fact that his former sponsor may have started spending a lot of time where he was living, it had some concerns that based on the evidence he provided, it appeared that they had no mobile phone contact until 25 July 2014 which was the day after he claimed to have proposed to her. The Tribunal told him that this cast doubts about his claims regarding when the parties met and when the relationship started. He did not provide any further explanation.
The Tribunal asked the applicant why they decided to marry so quickly after they met. The applicant stated that when he went to India for his brother’s wedding his mother wanted him to have an arranged marriage. He told her that he had met Ms Galloway and that he did not want to marry in India. His stated that when he returned from India and he told his former sponsor that his mother wanted him to have an arranged marriage, she became very concerned and thought his mother might force him to marry. He stated they were both obsessed with each other, so he decided to propose.
The Tribunal is prepared to accept the parties met through their mutual friend, Anita Devi but has concerns regarding the fact that the telephone records do not support the applicant’s claims regarding the timing of their first meeting and the development of the relationship. The Tribunal is concerned that both the phone log the applicant provided, and the transcript of calls do not show any telephone contact between the parties until 25 July 2014, the day after he claimed he proposed. The Tribunal has considered the applicant’s claims that they also used WhatsApp particularly when he went to India and is prepared to accept this. However, the Tribunal notes that despite the fact the Tribunal raised its concerns regarding the commencement of messages between the parties, the applicant did not provide any further evidence supporting the claim that they first met in May and that their relationship commenced shortly after that.
The Tribunal has also considered the other explanation provided by the applicant that his former sponsor was spending a lot of time at Jensen Street and referred to their work schedules. While the Tribunal is prepared to accept that their close proximity to each other may account for the parties having very little need to have mobile telephone contact it does not, in the Tribunal’s view account for the fact that the evidence submitted indicated the parties had no telephone contact at all until the day after the applicant proposed to Ms Galloway.
The Tribunal also has concerns regarding the claimed duration of the relationship prior to their marriage and the lodgement of the visa application even if it were to be convinced they met in May 2014. The Tribunal has had regard to the evidence showing they married on 26 August 2014 and that under the Marriage Act 1961, a couple must give notice of intended marriage to an authorised marriage celebrant at least one month and no more than 18 months before the wedding[4]. At a best-case scenario, assuming the applicants met on 1 May 2014, they would have known each other around 120 days prior to submitting the application. However, the Tribunal did not find that the evidence supports a finding that the met and commenced their relationship in May and furthermore, notes that the applicant was offshore for approximately 20 of those 120 days.
[4] See: Get married | Attorney-General's Department, accessed 3 February 2025.
In relation to the length of time they lived together, the Tribunal is prepared to accept the sponsor moved into the same address as where the applicant resided after he returned from India (in July 2014). However, the Tribunal is concerned that they only resided together a matter of weeks before lodging the visa application.
While the Tribunal is not in a position to dispute the strength of feelings the parties had for each other, nothing in the written information provided nor in the applicant’s oral evidence explained the haste for why they married, and why he lodged his application within such a short time of the parties having met. This raises concerns for the Tribunal that the applicant may have been motivated by reasons related to his migration status. The Tribunal accepts they discussed plans for their future; however, the nature of the plans as articulated was very generalised referring to home ownership and having a family.
While the Tribunal acknowledges the parties were known to each other and is prepared to accept they provided each other with some companionship and emotional support, the Tribunal is not persuaded, on the evidence before it, that the relationship was a genuine relationship as contended. The Tribunal was not satisfied that the nature of persons' commitment to each other reflected a genuine spousal relationship.

Financial

The Tribunal has considered the financial aspects of the relationship including joint ownership of assets, joint liabilities, extent of pooling of financial resources any legal obligations owed to the other party and any sharing of day-to-day household expenses.
In the application form submitted in September 2014, the parties claimed:
“We both are working to maintain ourselves financially. We both have part time work status at the moment and all our earnings comes to our bank accounts. We also have a joint bank account which we use for everyday expenses in that way we can also keep a close watch on our expenses thus allowing us to save for our future.
No evidence was provided in relation to the employment of either party and there are no items shown in the Interim Statements of Account from the ANZ Bank Account (ending in 6078) for the period 5 August until 3 October 2014 or for any other account which supports the claim that all their earnings “go into our bank account”.
There is evidence of cash deposits into the joint account in August and September 2014.
The 5 August to 1 September 2014 statement of the joint bank account shows a total of 31 transactions and includes some expenditure during the couple’s honeymoon in New Zealand from 28-31 August 2014. Of those 14 transactions, the most expensive item was for $62 which was duty free, and most were for less than $20.
A statement for the period 1 September to 3 October 2014, there are five supermarket transactions.
Prior to the Department determining the application for the Partner (Temporary) (subclass UK-820) visa, it requested further information from the applicant. In response, he provided an additional bank statement for the period 5 August until 30 September 2015 which shows 52 transactions. In addition, to a number of transfers to Anita Devi (which likely relates to rent), other items that may reflect usual household expenses were limited to three transactions: two withdrawals/payments at Aldi amounting to $59 and one at Woolworths for $11. All other were for expenditure are at various fast-food outlets in Yass, Goulbourn, Griffith, Parramatta, San Souci and French Forest and fuel purchases at various locations which the Tribunal considers relate to the applicant’s employment as a driver. There are some other miscellaneous items like iTune purchases.
In oral evidence, the applicant stated the sponsor worked in casual jobs at that time, but he was vague about what sort of work she did. I referred to the fact that there was reference to her being a childcare worker and when pressed, he indicated she worked in childcare and that she worked casually and was paid “cash in hand.” In relation to how their joint account was used, he stated they paid for groceries and other daily expenses.
At hearing the applicant stated that he and his former sponsor paid one of the utility bills and paid rent to their landlady (Anita Devi) either in cash or by bank transfer.
Bank statements show payments made to A Devi on 2, 9 and 25 September 2015 of $350, $500 and $250 respectively.
He confirmed the parties did not have any joint ownership of assets or joint liabilities nor were there any legal obligations owed to the other party at the time of application.
The Tribunal understands that given the very short period in which the parties knew each other at the time the application, they did not have any joint ownership of assets or joint liabilities neither were any claims made that they had any legal obligations to each other. The Tribunal did not put any negative weight on this and is therefore reliant on the claims that were made about the extent of pooling of financial resources and the sharing of their day-to-day household expenses.
The Tribunal accepts there was evidence of rent being paid out of the joint account. However the evidence provided by the applicant does not substantiate who contributed funds into the account. Further, the Tribunal is not satisfied the bank account statements reflect what might be reasonably expected of a married couple claiming they used the account to pay for their daily living expenses given the small number of transactions are appear to relate to grocery type items. Overall the Tribunal is not satisfied the evidence provided supports a positive finding that the parties pooled their financial resources or shared day to day household expenses at the time of application as claimed.
The Tribunal is therefore not satisfied that that the financial aspects of the parties relationship were indicative of there being in a genuine spousal relationship.

Household

The Tribunal considered the nature of the parties’ household including any joint responsibility for the care and support of children; parties' living arrangements; and any sharing of housework.
At the time of application, the parties provided consistent descriptions of the nature of their household, namely that
“We live in Fairfield West with our common friend Anita and her husband. We met at Anita's place in May 2014 in the same house where we live now. Anita and her husband are our common friend.
As the nature of our accommodation is shared, we have certain duties which are common for everyone, and certain duties are our personal duties. I mainly look after laundry, cleaning our room, cooking whereas Sukhvinder looks after gardening, paying bills, putting out rubbish etc. We both go out for our grocery shopping.”
The applicant provided the Department with a copy of his registration certificate showing his vehicle was registered at 27 Jensen Street Fairfield West from 23 March 2015 until 23 March 2016 as well as a copy of his interim card Medicare showing the same address. He also provided copies of Origin Energy Gas bills in the name of the sponsor at the same address for the periods of 23 October 2014 to 9 January 2015 and from 10 January 2015 to 25 February 2015.
A letter from Anita Devi dated 30 September 2015 states that she has known the applicant for more than five years and the sponsor for three years and they are tenants at her property at 27 Jensen Street, Fairfield West. She wrote that they live together and have responsibility for paying bills and rent. She stated they are fond of each other and spend lots of time together and join in all the functions she has at her home. She referred to the parties travelling to NZ for their honeymoon and that she often hears them talk about babies and buying a home. She further stated the sponsor is very helpful and often helps her round the house and the couple share household chores. On Sundays she sees them both helping clean around the house and on Thursdays they shop and eat out in restaurants and occasionally visit friends and several times their friends have come over to visit. Ms Devi wrote that she is confident the relationship is genuine and are very much in love.
The applicant told the hearing that when he and his former sponsor met, she was living in Auburn. He stated he moved into Jensen Street address with Anita Devi and Jasvinder Singh when he returned from India in early July 2014.. He stated they shared food with them, and that Ms Galloway and Ms Devi did most the cooking. He stated he and Mr Singh shared the outside jobs, such as lawn mowing, and putting out the bins. He stated he also vacuumed and that Ms Galloway most did the laundry although he would put it out sometimes.
The applicant stated that in 2017 the parties moved to Woodpark. He stated they left Jensen Street because there were a lot of arguments between the landlady and his sponsor.
The Tribunal acknowledges there were no children of the relationship and in view of the very short period the parties were known to each other prior to the lodgement of the application did not put negative weight on this.
The Tribunal accepts that in relation to the nature of the household the evidence provided indicates the parties resided together at 27 Jensen Street, Fairfield and that they both did housework and that this reflects they had some sort of relationship. However, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the evidence provided in regard to the household aspects reflects a genuine spousal relationship at the time of application.

Social

The Tribunal considered the social aspects of the relationship including whether 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 Tribunal explained to the applicant the photos he had submitted with his application were neither annotated nor dated and asked him to explain who the people in those photos are. Close to 60 photos were submitted at the time of application: many are duplicates or slightly different versions of other photographs. Some of the photographs include various friends, including the witnesses who provided evidence at hearing and written statements of support and some of the photographs are from the party's wedding and the few days they spent in New Zealand on their honeymoon. Further photographs were later provided to the Department, which again included photographs of the parties together with a similar circle of friends and them attending a friend’s wedding.
The applicant provided two Form 888 Statutory Declarations to the Department including from Anita Devi (his landlady) and Jasvinder Singh dated 15 and 14 October 2014 respectively. They attest to the genuineness of the relationship. A further statement was provided by Ms Devi dated 30 September 2015 (referred to above).

Evidence provided by witnesses

The Tribunal took oral evidence by telephone from the three witnesses nominated by the applicant. They had previously provided statements of support at various times during the application process including statements declared in December 2024.
The applicant stated that he knew Ms Meenakshi Srivinas from having worked with her about 12 years previously in Glenorie and that he knew her husband through her. The applicant stated they used to come to Jensen Street, and he often went to visit them at their home and on one occasion he visited them with his former sponsor. He also talked to them on the phone. In relation to Jasvinder Singh, he and applicant lived together for a period of time and knew each other from India.

Meenakshi Srivinas

Meenakshi Srivinas gave consistent evidence about her knowledge of and relationship with the applicant. She stated she first met the applicant’s former sponsor on their wedding day. She stated that after that she saw the parties together around half a dozen times on social occasions from mid-2014 until the parties separated. She stated the parties visited her residence on one occasion.
Ms Srivinas stated she believes the parties were in a genuine relationship because they were married and living together and later on they had a business together. She stated they were planning on having a baby together. She stated they lived happily together.
In relation to the breakdown of the relationship, Ms Srivinas stated that from around late 2021 and into 2022 the applicant was really upset. When asked if this was something she observed or he told her, she responded that he told her he was seeing a psychologist.

Srinivas Srinivas

Mr Srinivas explained his knowledge of and relationship with the applicant in consistent terms to those of the applicant. He stated he first met Ms Galloway at the wedding as he was one of their signatories. He stated after that, he met her about three or four times with the applicant in various social settings and they came to their home once.
Mr Srinivas stated that he believes that as a couple they were genuine because they were married and lived together. He stated even when the applicant talked, it was obvious they were planning things, like “buying property and other stuff.” He stated the applicant was really committed and wanted a child.
Mr Srinivas stated he does know what happened to the relationship. He stated about three or four years ago they started having arguments and Ms Galloway was threatening to take away her support which she was using as leverage. He stated that the applicant was providing Ms Galloway with a lot of support including financial and with the business. He stated his knowledge of the situation was based on information provided by the applicant. He stated the applicant was worried and tense and she started using the power against him and making threats of deportation. He referred to Ms Galloway faking a pregnancy and that the applicant was keen to have a child. He stated that at least from the applicant’s side the relationship was genuine.
I asked the witness how the statements of support he and his wife provided were prepared noting that they had submitted a number of statements over the years of the application process. I referred to the fact that on each occasion, their statements were exactly the same and explained that I found this to be curious as it is not usual for two people to use exactly the same descriptors. He stated they wrote them together. He stated they prepared the statements as a Word document together and then copied and pasted the wording into their respective statutory declarations.

Jasvinder Singh

Mr Singh stated he knows the applicant from school and that he lived with him at his place at Jensen Street. He stated both the applicant and his former sponsor lived there for about three years from 2014 although he was uncertain when the applicant moved there.
Mr Singh stated he met the sponsor because she used to come to parties at their place as a friend of his then wife, Ms Devi. He stated the parties met there and then they started seeing each other, and they married.
Mr Singh stated they paid rent either in cash or transfer. He stated in relation to household chores, they both did cleaning and sometimes the applicant cut the lawn, and that Ms Galloway helped with cleaning. He stated that both the applicant and his sponsor cooked.
Mr Singh stated at that time they went overseas for their honeymoon, and they looked very happy. He stated that at that time they looked genuine and went everywhere together.
In relation to the breakdown of the relationship, Mr Singh stated he didn’t ask what happened. He stated he left Jensen Street in around 2015/2016 and was busy and went overseas a couple of times. He stated that two or three years ago the applicant looked upset and told him something was wrong with the relationship. He stated that they worked in the same company, so they sometimes saw each other but didn’t have much to do with them. He stated the parties had a very good relationship and looked happy and he did not know what happened.
The Tribunal accepts the parties represented themselves to other people as being married to each other. The Tribunal acknowledges that some friends provided supportive evidence although the Tribunal is of the view that at the time the application was lodged, the supporting evidence was extremely limited. The oral evidence from two witnesses was that they had only met the sponsor on the day of the parties wedding and between August 2014 and 2021 they had only met her a few times in social settings involving other people except on one occasion. Therefore, at that of application, Meenakshi and Srinivas Srinivas had only met the sponsor on 26 August 2014 would only have the parties once or twice between then the lodgement of the application in September 2014. While the Tribunal accepts the Mr and Mrs Srinivas believe the relationship was genuine, the Tribunal therefore is of the view they had very limited opportunity to assess the genuineness of the relationship given the very limited exposure they had to the parties to be able to make an assessment of that.
While the Tribunal accepts that a small number of friends expressed the view the relationship was genuine the fact of them believing this does not make it so. Overall the Tribunal was not convinced as to the social aspects of the couple’s relationship based on the information evidence made available.

Section 376 certificates and allegations

The Tribunal wrote to the applicant in December 2022, explaining the Department’s file contains a number of section 376 certificates as follows:
Certificate dated 2 December 2019
The section 376 certificate dated 2 December 2019 relates to documents on the Department’s file number BCC2014/2255721 specifically:
·folios 225-231. The certificate states that disclosure of this material would be contrary to the public interest because disclose could enable a person to ascertain the existence or identity of a confidential source of information.
·folios 234-238 of the, the disclosure of which it states would be contrary to the public interest because it would disclose lawful methods for preventing, detecting and investigating breaches or evasions of the law which would or be likely to prejudice the effectiveness of those methods.

Those folios relate to the allegations made on 5 and 13 December 2018 referred to above.

Certificate dated 17 April 2020
The section 376 certificate dated 17 April 2020 relates to information received in the Border Watch Allegations and Referral Team via web form on 26 March 2020 (TRIM reference number OPD2020/135409 of file number BCC2014/2255721). It certifies that disclosure of this material would be contrary to the public interest because it may disclose or enable a person to ascertain the existence or identity of a confidential source of information.

This certificate relates to the allegation made to the Department on 26 March 2020.

Certificate dated 17 June 2021
There is a further section 376 certificate dated 17 June 2021 which relates to information received by the Department (TRIM reference number CLD2021/17101654 of file number BCC2014/2255721) in respect of the advice from your former sponsor that she has withdrawn her sponsorship of your application. It certifies that disclosure of this material would endanger the life or physical safety of a person, and where information was provided ‘in confidence’, the provider of the information has not consented to the disclosure of the information to the review applicant.
In making a decision on your review application, the Tribunal is required to inform you about the existence of the certificates as well as invite you to comment on its findings regarding their validity and the relevance of the documents to which they relate. The Presiding Member has considered the certificates and finds them valid. In addition, she finds that the documents to which they relate are relevant as they relate to its assessment of whether you are sponsored and/or the genuineness of your claimed relationship.

Section 376 of the Migration Act permits the Minister to certify that the disclosure of information would be contrary to the public interest for any reason specified in the certificate that could form the basis for a claim by the Crown in right of the Commonwealth in a judicial proceeding that the matter contained in the document, or the information, should not be disclosed.
During the hearing the existence of these certificates where discussed with the applicant and in response his legal representative stated that he agrees with the Tribunal’s assessment that the certificates are valid and that the documents to which they relate to are relevant to the review, given the review is about his relationship with his former sponsor.
In relation to allegations made to the Department regarding his relationship with his sponsor, they were also outlined in correspondence from the Tribunal dated 15 December 2022. The letter explained that adverse information had been provided to the Department. The particulars of the information were outlined as follows:
There is an allegation made to the Department on 5 December 2018 that:

·you were living in 5 bedroom rented house in Woodpark with your brother and your friends.
·all the documents provided to immigration are false.
·all the photographs provided are just taken for immigration purpose.
·you lied to immigration.

There is a further allegation made to the Department on 13 December 2018. The allegation made is that:

·you have applied for residency in Australia on false pretence
·you submitted false documents to immigration to obtain citizenship.
·you paid your former sponsor $30,000 upfront.
·you are paying your former sponsor $1,500 until your visa is granted.
·you were living in Woodpark and your sponsor was living in Auburn and that you changed your driver’s licence to match this.
·you have taken pictures as a couple to prove the case.
·were in fact engaged in India and that you are waiting to get citizenship in Australia to get a divorce and bring your prospective wife from India.

There is a further allegation made to the Department on 26 March 2020. In that allegation it states that your former sponsor has wanted to divorce you since 2017 but that you would not agree to her doing so. It further states that you are trying to gain citizenship.

As already noted the applicant had not responded to the Tribunal’s correspondence in the context of the first review and the matter was raised in the course of the hearing. the applicant denied the allegations and stated the house he lived in did not have five bedrooms, but rather it had one-bedroom house. He stated there is no proof he was married in India and that the claim that he was engaged in India was baseless. He stated that couples sometimes have arguments but that does not mean they want to break up..
At the end of the hearing the Tribunal explained to the applicant that generally speaking it does not place significant weight on allegations made anonymously because it is never apparent what the motivation of the person making the allegations is. It also explained that in certain circumstances it may take them into account if other elements of the evidence suggest significant concerns. The applicant responded that his landlady did not want the parties to move out so maybe she made the allegations.

Oral submissions

The applicant’s legal representatives made oral submissions acknowledging the Tribunal had fairly and squarely raised some concern and inconsistencies with the applicant and stated he was unable to add to that. He noted that there was an issue with the withdrawal of sponsorship by the former sponsor in 2021 and also that false statements may raise credibility concerns.
The legal representative noted there was conflicting evidence in relation to the timing of the when the relationship ended. He stated that they will attempt to provide a copy an ultrasound in relation to claims that the former sponsor may have been pregnant. He stated she asserted she was pregnant but may not have been.

Concluding comments

In concluding the hearing, the Tribunal sought an explanation regarding why certain parts of documents provided prior to hearing had been redacted and was told it was as a result of a technical problem, and it was agreed they would be re-submitted.
The Tribunal provided until 29 January 2025 for the applicant to provide any post hearing submissions, including a copy of the divorce application.
The applicant stated he had nothing further to add.

Post hearing submissions

On 15 January 2025, the applicant provided the Tribunal with the unredacted copies of his bank statements and on 28 January 2025 the Tribunal received submissions from the applicant which included a number of attachments as follows:
- A copy of the divorce application filed by the applicant and the sponsor, dated 31 March 2022.
- Statement of the applicant dated 21 January 2025.
- Emails between the applicant and the sponsor, dated 7 June 2022 and between the applicant and his lawyer, Mr Maroulis, dated 23 February 2024.
- A copy of the sponsor’s driver licence (NSW), downloaded on 20 September
- 2021.
- Medicare claim history for the applicant, evidencing sessions with a psychologist, Ms Nicole.
The Tribunal was requested to provide the applicant with emails that are said to have been sent from the sponsor to the Department so that the applicant could “check the email address on the emails or, alternatively, could the Tribunal forward the email addresses for those emails.” The covering submission states that the applicant does not have a copy but given some of the information in the emails was incorrect, they wanted to make sure that the emails did come from the sponsor.
It further stated there are a lot of irregularities in the material before the Tribunal, in relation to when the applicant’s relationship with his former sponsor ended and that it is not a satisfactory state of affairs. The Tribunal was asked to give the benefit of the doubt to the applicant, given, the evidence that the relationship was still in existence in 2021 (compared to the supposed 22 January 2020 breakdown date, as stated in the divorce application filed on 31 March 2022).

Overall assessment of the relationship

In considering whether the applicant and his former sponsor were ever in a genuine and committed relationship, the Tribunal was somewhat surprised that the applicant was granted a Partner (Temporary) (Class UK) 820 on the basis of the evidence that was submitted at the time of application.
In weighing up the evidence provided, the Tribunal is cognisant of the fact that it is difficult for applicants to provide further evidence once a relationship has ended and in this case, is also cognisant of the fact the applicant first lodged his application in 2014 and that he did so a matter of some four months after he claimed he had met his former sponsor. Nevertheless, the Tribunal is reliant on the evidence provided by the applicant about the existence of a genuine and committed relationship.
Although the Tribunal accepts the parties were legally married, based on the totality of the evidence before it, the Tribunal is not satisfied that they had a mutual commitment to a shared life as husband and wife to the exclusion of all others, that the relationship was genuine and continuing and they lived together and not separately and apart on a permanent basis.
Although the Tribunal accepts the parties were known to each other, lived at the same residence for a period of time and undertook activities together and travelled to New Zealand for a short honeymoon, the Tribunal was not satisfied the evidence provided supports a claim that a genuine and continuing relationship existed between the applicant and his former sponsor. There were shortcomings in the evidence across all aspects of the relationship and the Tribunal made specific findings in respect of each aspect to be assessed for the purposes of this decision.
Further, the Tribunal notes that a number of allegations were made to the Department about applicant’s relationship with his former sponsor. Generally speaking, the Tribunal does not place significant weight on unsubstantiated and anonymous allegations. However, as the Tribunal explained to the applicant during the hearing, in certain instances where there are significant concerns the Tribunal may take them into account.
The Tribunal acknowledges the applicant denied the allegations. However, given the Tribunal was not satisfied across all aspects of the relationship, the fact of the allegations adds to the Tribunal’s concerns that the applicant and his former sponsor did not have a mutual commitment to a shared life as husband and wife to the exclusion of all others, that the relationship was genuine and continuing and they lived together and not separately and apart on a permanent basis.
The Tribunal acknowledges the manner in which the applicant and his representative approached the second Tribunal review providing substantial amount of evidence in a timely and professional manner. Where relevant, the Tribunal considered evidence provided and notes that the post hearing evidence submitted did not relate to the existence of a genuine and committed relationship between the parties at the time of application.
As the Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant and the sponsor were ever in a genuine relationship as defined in s.5F(2) of the Migration Act, the applicant does not meet cl.801.221(2)(c). Accordingly, the applicant does not meet the criteria in cl.801.221(2) of the Regulations. Furthermore, the applicant has not claimed, and there is no evidence before the Tribunal, that the applicant meets the alternative criteria in cl.801.221(2A), (3), (4), (5) or (6).
The Tribunal had regard to the applicant’s claims that he suffered family violence committed by the sponsor during his relationship with his former sponsor. As the Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant and the sponsor were ever in a genuine relationship as defined in s.5F(2) of the Migration Act, it is therefore not necessary for the Tribunal to assess the claims of family violence.
: For the reasons above, the applicant does not satisfy the criteria for the grant of the visa.

Discrepancies between written evidence and oral evidence

The Tribunal has had regard to the fact that on the evidence before it the marriage of the applicant and his former sponsor was terminated on 10 June 2022 and that the divorce application filed in the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia shows that the parties declared they separated on 22 January 2020. The Tribunal has also had regard to the fact that contradictory evidence was provided regarding the end of the applicant's relationship with his former sponsor and that he claimed she insisted on backdating the date of their separation. The Tribunal notes the applicant himself gave oral evidence that his relationship with his former sponsor ended in December 2021. Regardless of the actual date of their separation, the Tribunal is concerned that at no time did the applicant inform the Department or the Tribunal that his relationship with his former sponsor had ended. This reflects poorly on the applicant as he is required to keep the Department informed regarding any changes in his circumstances.
The Tribunal notes that the applicant did not offer an explanation at hearing as to why he did not inform the Department or the Tribunal that his relationship with his former sponsor had ended some years previously. When the issue was put to him at hearing, he offered explanations as to why his former sponsor may have written to the Department withdrawing his sponsorship and stated he was not aware that she had done so.

The Tribunal notes that while an applicant must be sponsored, the provisions do not require that they be married. However, in the light of the Tribunal’s findings that it is not satisfied about the existence of a genuine and continuing relationship at the time of application, the Tribunal did not go on to make findings about when the relationship ended.

Request for emails to be provided

The Tribunal has considered the applicant’s request in an email from the applicant’s representative dated 28 January 2024 that it provides copies of emails from the sponsor regarding the withdrawal of her sponsorship
“Could the Tribunal send the emails that are said to have been sent from the sponsor to the Department, and which were referred to at the hearing. We just wanted to check the email address on the emails or, alternatively, could the Tribunal forward the email addresses for those emails. We do not have a copy but given some of the information in the emails as discussed was incorrect, we just wanted to make sure that the emails did come from the sponsor”.
The Tribunal did not agree to the request in the light of the fact the Tribunal found that the withdrawal of the sponsorship or its timing was not pertinent to whether or not the applicant was in a genuine and continuing relationship with his former sponsor at the time of application. Furthermore, the Tribunal was mindful of its privacy obligations.

DECISION

The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicant a Partner (Residence) (Class BS) visa.

Linda Holub
Member

ATTACHMENT – EXTRACTS FROM THE MIGRATION REGULATIONS 1994

1.21 Interpretation

In this Division:
independent expert means a person who:
(a)is suitably qualified to make independent assessments of non-judicially determined claims of family violence; and
(b)is employed by, or contracted to provide services to, an organisation that is specified, in a legislative instrument made by the Minister, for the purpose of making independent assessments of non-judicially determined claims of family violence.

non-judicially determined claim of family violence has the meaning given by subregulations 1.23(8) and (9).
relevant family violence means conduct, whether actual or threatened, towards:
(a)the alleged victim; or
(b)a member of the family unit of the alleged victim; or
(c)a member of the family unit of the alleged perpetrator; or
(d)the property of the alleged victim; or
(e)the property of a member of the family unit of the alleged victim; or
(f)the property of a member of the family unit of the alleged perpetrator;

that causes the alleged victim to reasonably fear for, or to be reasonably apprehensive about, his or her own wellbeing or safety.
statutory declaration means a statutory declaration under the Statutory Declarations Act 1959.
violence includes a threat of violence.

…

1.23 When is a person taken to have suffered or committed family violence?

For these Regulations, this regulation explains when:
(a)a person (the alleged victim) is taken to have suffered family violence; and
(b)another person (the alleged perpetrator) is taken to have committed family violence in relation to the alleged victim.
Note Schedule 2 sets out which visas may be granted on the basis of a person having suffered family violence. The criteria to be satisfied for the visa to be granted set out which persons may be taken to have suffered family violence, and how those persons are related to the spouse or de facto partner of the alleged perpetrator mentioned in this regulation.

Circumstances in which family violence is suffered and committed — injunction under Family Law Act 1975

The alleged victim is taken to have suffered family violence, and the alleged perpetrator is taken to have committed family violence, if, on the application of the alleged victim, a court has granted an injunction under paragraph 114(1)(a), (b) or (c) of the Family Law Act 1975 against the alleged perpetrator.
For subregulation (2), the violence, or part of the violence, that led to the granting of the injunction must have occurred while the married relationship between the alleged perpetrator and the spouse of the alleged perpetrator existed.

Circumstances in which family violence is suffered and committed — court order

The alleged victim is taken to have suffered family violence, and the alleged perpetrator is taken to have committed family violence, if:
(a)a court has made an order under a law of a State or Territory against the alleged perpetrator for the protection of the alleged victim from violence; and
(b)[…] order was made after the court had given the alleged perpetrator an opportunity to be heard, or otherwise to make submissions to the court, in relation to the matter.
For subregulation (4), the violence, or part of the violence, that led to the granting of the order must have occurred while the married relationship or de facto relationship existed between the alleged perpetrator and the spouse or de facto partner of the alleged perpetrator.

Circumstances in which family violence is suffered and committed — conviction

The alleged victim is taken to have suffered family violence, and the alleged perpetrator is taken to have committed family violence, if a court has:
(a)convicted the alleged perpetrator of an offence of violence against the alleged victim; or
(b)recorded a finding of guilt against the alleged perpetrator in respect of an offence of violence against the alleged victim.
For subregulation (6), the violence, or part of the violence, that led to the conviction or recording of a finding of guilt must have occurred while the married relationship or de facto relationship existed between the alleged perpetrator and the spouse or de facto partner of the alleged perpetrator.

Circumstances in which family violence is suffered and committed — non-judicially determined claim of family violence

For these Regulations, an application for a visa is taken to include a non-judicially determined claim of family violence if:
(a)the applicant seeks to satisfy a prescribed criterion that the applicant, or another person mentioned in the criterion, has suffered family violence; and
(b)the alleged victim and the alleged perpetrator have made a joint undertaking to a court in relation to proceedings in which an allegation is before the court that the alleged perpetrator has committed an act of violence against the alleged victim.
For these Regulations, an application for a visa is taken to include a non-judicially determined claim of family violence if:
(a)the applicant seeks to satisfy a prescribed criterion that the applicant, or another person mentioned in the criterion, has suffered family violence; and
(b)the alleged victim is:
(i)       a spouse or de facto partner of the alleged perpetrator; or
(ii)      a dependent child of:
(A)the alleged perpetrator; or
(B)the spouse or de facto partner of the alleged perpetrator; or
(C)both the alleged perpetrator and his or her spouse or de facto partner; or
(iii)     a member of the family unit of a spouse or de facto partner of the alleged perpetrator (being a member of the family unit who has made a combined application for a visa with the spouse or de facto partner); and
(c)the alleged victim or another person on the alleged victim’s behalf has presented evidence in accordance with regulation 1.24 that:
(i)       the alleged victim has suffered relevant family violence; and
(ii)      the alleged perpetrator committed that relevant family violence.
If an application for a visa includes a non-judicially determined claim of family violence:
(a)the Minister must consider whether the alleged victim has suffered relevant family violence; and
(b)if the Minister is satisfied that the alleged victim has suffered the relevant family violence, the Minister must consider the application on that basis; and
(c)if the Minister is not satisfied that the alleged victim has suffered the relevant family violence:
(i) the Minister must seek the opinion of an independent expert about whether the alleged victim has suffered the relevant family violence; and
(ii) the Minister must take an independent expert’s opinion on the matter to be 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.
The alleged victim is taken to have suffered family violence, and the alleged perpetrator is taken to have committed family violence, if:
(a)an application for a visa includes a non-judicially determined claim of family violence; and
(b)the Minister is satisfied under paragraph (10)(b) that the alleged victim has suffered relevant family violence.
For subregulation (11), the Minister must be satisfied that the relevant family violence, or part of the relevant family violence, occurred while the married relationship or de facto relationship existed between the alleged perpetrator and the spouse or de facto partner of the alleged perpetrator.
The alleged victim is taken to have suffered family violence, and the alleged perpetrator is taken to have committed family violence, if:
(a)an application for a visa includes a non-judicially determined claim of family violence; and
(b)the Minister is required by subparagraph (10)(c)(ii) to take as correct an opinion of an independent expert that the alleged victim has suffered relevant family violence.
For subregulation (13), the violence, or part of the violence, that led to the independent expert having the opinion that the alleged victim has suffered relevant family violence must have occurred while the married relationship or de facto relationship existed between the alleged perpetrator and the spouse or de facto partner of the alleged perpetrator.