Tran (Migration)

[2024] AATA 474

Tran (Migration) [2024] AATA 474 (5 January 2024)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

REVIEW APPLICANT:  Mr Hon Linh Tran

VISA APPLICANTS:  Ms Kieu Diem Nguyen
Master Gia Thinh Nguyen

REPRESENTATIVE:  Miss Andie Lam

CASE NUMBER:  1831535

HOME AFFAIRS REFERENCE(S):          BBC2017/4385134

MEMBER:David Barker

DATE:5 January 2024

PLACE OF DECISION:  Sydney

DECISION:The Tribunal remits the application for a Prospective Marriage (Temporary) (Class TO) visa for reconsideration, with the direction that the first named visa applicant meets the following criteria for a Subclass 300 (Prospective Marriage) visa:

·cl 300.211 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations

·cl 300.214 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations

·cl 300.215 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations

·cl 300.216 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations

·cl 300.221 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations

·cl 300.221A of Schedule 2 to the Regulations

The Tribunal remits the application for a Prospective Marriage (Temporary) (Class TO) visa for reconsideration, with the direction that the second named visa applicant meets the following criteria for a Subclass 300 (Prospective Marriage) visa:

·cl 300.312 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations.

Statement made on 05 January 2024 at 5:02pm

CATCHWORDS
MIGRATION – Prospective Marriage (Temporary) (Class TO) visa – subclass 300 – Tribunal accepts that the parties continue to genuinely intend to be married and that tentative arrangements have been made – parties consider their relationship as long term – parties have a mutual commitment to a shared life as spouses – there is not an impediment to the proposed marriage under Australian law – decision under review remitted

LEGISLATION
Marriage Act 1961, s 12
Migration Act 1958, ss 5F, 65, 375
Migration Regulations 1994, r 1.15, Schedule 2, cls 300.211,300.214, 300.215, 300.216, 300.221, 300.312

CASES
Berenguel v MIAC [2010] HCA 8
He v MIBP [2017] FCAFC 206
Re MILGEA and Dhillon [1990] FCA 144

STATEMENT OF DECISION AND REASONS

APPLICATION FOR REVIEW

1. This is an application for review of decisions made by a delegate of the Minister for Home Affairs to refuse to grant the visa applicants Prospective Marriage (Temporary) (Class TO) visas under s 65 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (the Act).

2. The visa applicants applied for the visas on 17 November 2017. At the time the visa application was lodged, Class TO contained only one subclass: Subclass 300 (Prospective Marriage). The criteria for a Subclass 300 visa are set out in Part 300 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.

3. The delegate refused to grant the visas on 27 September 2018 on the basis that the first named visa applicant did not satisfy cl 300.215, cl 300.216 and cl 300.221 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations because they were not satisfied that the review applicant and primary visa applicant have a genuine intention to marry and live together as spouses.

4. The review applicant appeared before the Tribunal on 1 December 2023 to give evidence and present arguments. The Tribunal also received oral evidence from the first named visa applicant, and as Hien Hanh Nguyen and Van Minh Nguyen. The Tribunal hearing was conducted with the assistance of an interpreter in the Vietnamese and English languages.

5. The review applicant was represented in relation to the review.

6. For the following reasons, the Tribunal has concluded that the matter should be remitted for reconsideration.

   BACKGROUND

7. The first named visa applicant (the applicant) is a national of Vietnam and is currently 41 years old. The second named applicant, her son, is 10 years old. The applicant was previously married to Hong Chi Lam Hong from 25 October 2004 to 13 November 2014, with that marriage ending by divorce.

8. The review applicant (hereafter referred to as the sponsor) was born in Vietnam and is currently 61 years old. He first arrived in Australia in 1981 and became an Australian citizen by grant in September 1988. The sponsor was in a de facto relationship with Y Minh Sang from 1987 to 1995.  There were two children from that relationship, a daughter aged 29 years and a son, aged 35 years.

9. Information provided in association with the visa application indicates that the parties claim they first met in November 2014, when the sponsor was visiting Vietnam.  The sponsor returned to Australia on 17 November 2014 and subsequently, during a further trip he made to Vietnam the applicant and sponsor (hereafter referred to collectively as the parties) held an engagement ceremony on 9 September 2016.

10. Evidence provided to the Department in association with the visa application includes, but is not limited to:

    ·Documents regarding the identity, household registration and marital status of the parties and secondary visa applicant;

    ·Money transfer receipts in 2015, 2016, and 2017;

    ·Local police confirmation that sponsor was registered to stay at applicant’s address from 4 November 2014 to 4 December 2014 and from 24 August 2016 to 14 September 2016;

    ·Hotel bills in joint names issued by hotel in HCMC for below period: 15 November 2014 to 16 November 2014, 18 August to 21 August / unknown year, 10 September  to 11 September / unknown year;

    ·Witness statement in support of relationship from Nguyen Ly Thi Thi dated 16 June 2017

    ·Witness statement in support of relationship from Nguyen Thi Kim Tuyen dated 16 June 2017

    ·Form 888 – Witness statutory declaration of Van Minh Nguyen;

    ·Applicant written statement;

    ·Sponsor written statement;

    ·Photographs.

    ·Notice of Intended Marriage for wedding date in Australia: 1 July 2018.

11. Evidence provided to the Tribunal prior to and following the hearing includes, but is not limited to:

    ·Written submission from representative, Francis Tran, dated 18 October 2023;

    ·Written submissions from representative, Andie Lam, dated 26 November 2023

    • Notice of Intended Marriage for wedding date in Australia: 10 August 2024;
    • Wedding deposit receipt for function at Barluck Chinese seafood restaurant for wedding date in Cabramatta, NSW on 10 August 2024

    ·Sponsor statutory declaration dated 24 November 2023;

    • Statutory declaration of Elaine Tran, daughter of sponsor, dated 14 November 2023;

    ·Statutory declaration of Van Minh Nguyen, friend of sponsor, dated 9 November 2023;

    ·Statutory declaration of Hien Hanh Nguyen, uncle of applicant and friend of sponsor, dated 16 November 2023

    ·Statement of Truong Thi Song, with translation, mother of applicant, dated 9 November 2023.

    ·Local police confirmation that sponsor was registered to stay at applicant’s address from 27 July 2022 to 12 August 2022

    ·Money transfer receipts encompassing 2015 – 2023 period;

    ·Application for Confirmation of Temporary Residence (with English translation) dated 14 June 2017

    ·The sponsor's Temporary Stay Confirmation in Vietnam in Apr 2019 (untranslated)

    ·Saigon Hotel Receipts 2014

    ·Hotel receipts in April 2019 in Vietnam

    ·Hotel receipt for 27 July 2022 to 31 July 2022 in Ca Mau City

    ·Hotel receipt for 11 August 2022 to 12 August 2022 in Ho Chi Minh City

    ·Photographs;

    ·Witness support statements and declarations

    ·Evidence of flight booking for flight to Ho Chi Minh City 26 July 2022

    ·Untranslated communication records covering period 2016 to 2023;

    ·Translated  extracts of communication records covering period 2016 to 2023.

    The s 375A Certificate

12. The Departmental file contained a Certificate, dated 12 September 2019, issued by a delegate for the Minister for Home Affairs under Section 375A of the Act. The certificate has the effect, if the Tribunal is satisfied as to its validity, of restricting access to specified documents on the Department file.  The Certificate states that it is not in the public interest that the documents be released, ‘as the information contained in these documents relates to allegations made by a third party who requested protection of their identity as the source of the information. Disclosure to the person’s the subject of those allegations, or to other parties, may expose the identity of the source’.  The Tribunal told the sponsor that given the request to protect the identity of a confidential source, it had formed the provisional view that the delegate had provided a valid reason as to why the release of the documents was not in the public interest.

13. The Tribunal invited comment from the sponsor and his representative with regard to this issue. The applicant indicated that he would rely on his representative’s submissions with regard to this issue.  The representative indicated that they did not have concern as to the validity of the Certificate. The Tribunal considered this submission and has determined the 375A certificate is valid. Notwithstanding this, the Tribunal told the sponsor that they would provide the gist of the information from the certificated documents but did not consider it needed to under the provisions of s 359A of the Act as the Tribunal had not formed the view that this information provided the reason, or part of the reason to affirm the decision under review.

14. In providing the sponsor with the gist of the information, the Tribunal explained that the applicant is connected through relatives to a number of other people who are suspected of entering into contrived relationships for migration purposes, some of which have remained in Australia unlawfully when partner visa applications were refused. 

15. In considering this information, the Tribunal is of the view that actions of a person or persons, even if a relative, does not establish what actions or decisions taken by the applicant.  That is, the choices and behaviour of relatives of the applicant do not establish what her actions or behaviours are. This is why the Tribunal does not consider the aforementioned information enliven the provisions of s 359 of the Act.

    CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE

16. The issue in the present case is whether the applicant and sponsor have a genuine intention to marry and live together as spouses.

17. In making its findings, the Tribunal has considered the documents contained in the Department and Tribunal files as well as the oral evidence provided at the hearing.

18. Clause 300.221 requires that, at the time of decision, the visa applicant continues to satisfy the criteria in cls 300.211, 300.214, 300.215 and 300.216. Those criteria require that, at the time the visa application was made, the visa applicant intends to marry an Australian citizen, permanent resident or eligible New Zealand citizen; the parties have met and are known to each other personally; the parties genuinely intend to marry and intend to do so during the visa period; and the parties genuinely intend to live together as spouses. Accordingly, in order to determine whether the visa applicant continues to meet those requirements, it is first necessary to consider whether they were met at the time of the visa application.

    Does the visa applicant intend to marry an eligible person?

19. Clause 300.211 requires that at the time of application the visa applicant intends to marry a person who is an Australian citizen or Australian permanent resident or an eligible New Zealand citizen.

20. The sponsor became an Australian citizen in 1988.

21. Accordingly, it is the assessment of the Tribunal that the requirements of cl 300.211 are met.

    Have the applicants met in person and are they known to each other personally?

22. Clause 300.214 requires that the parties have met in person since each of them turned 18 and that they are known to each other personally.

23. The Tribunal has reviewed the available evidence, including photographs of the applicant and sponsor in each other’s company. The Tribunal is satisfied the parties, since each of them turned 18, have met and are known to each other personally.

24. Therefore, at the time of application, the requirements of cl 300.214 were met.

    Do the parties genuinely intend to marry?

25. Clause 300.215 requires that at the time of application the parties have a genuine intention to marry, and that the marriage is intended to take place within the visa period.

26. The Tribunal notes that the applicant provided the Department with evidence of the parties’ intention to marry in Cabramatta, NSW in July 2018.  This was in the form of a letter from Helen Nguyen, civil marriage celebrant which states she has in her possession a NOIM signed by the sponsor on 9 June 2017 which indicates the parties have tentative arrangements to marry in Cabramatta, NSW on 1 July 2018.

27. As discussed above, the prospective marriage visa application was refused and as a consequence the marriage in July 2018 in Cabramatta, NSW did not take place.

28. The Tribunal wrote to the sponsor on 31 October 2018 to inquire as to whether the parties had progressed their relationship to marriage, due to possible implications this may have in relation to the review application.  By way of a response the sponsor provided the Tribunal with a statutory declaration, declared 28 November 2018, in which with respect to marriage he declares:

    The Case officer said that my fiancée was unable to provide details of our intended wedding such as the date of marriage, who will be invited, the possible venue, the costs, etc.

    Our wedding details including the date of our marriage depend on the date of the visa to be granted.  I have been advised that we have 9 months from the date of the visa grant to marry.  Therefore, we intend to marry about 2 months after the date of the visa grant.

    We will invite relatives of both sides, our friends, my children.  We will make a reservation for 10 tables at Bar Luck restaurant  in Cabramatta.  It would cost us around $10,000.00.

29. At hearing the parties gave oral evidence consistent with that contained in the sponsor’s November 2018 statutory declaration.

30. In association with the review application the parties have provided the Tribunal with a further NOIM for a proposed wedding date in Australia of 10 August 2024 and as well a wedding function deposit receipt for a proposed wedding celebration at Barluck Chinese seafood restaurant in Cabramatta, NSW on 10 August 2024.

31. The Tribunal considers with respect to this factor, the parties have provided plausible and reasonable reasons for the proposed marriage arrangements.

32. At the time of application, the parties had a genuine intention to marry and satisfy the requirements of cl 300.215(a). The proposed date for the marriage was within the anticipated visa period as required by cl 300.215(b) and the parties planned to marry each other in Australia as soon as possible. The Tribunal accepts that the parties continue to genuinely intend to be married and that tentative arrangements have been made.  The Tribunal finds that it is intended that the marriage is to take place within the visa period. Therefore, the requirements of cl 300.215 are met.

    Do the parties genuinely intend to live together?

33. Clause 300.216 requires that at the time of application ‘the parties genuinely intend to live together as spouses’. ‘Spouse’ is defined in s 5F of the Act and provides that a person is the spouse of another where those two people are in a married relationship. Persons in a married relationship must be married to each other under a marriage that is recognised as 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).

34. The Tribunal is aware of the principles established by the Family Court of Australia In the Marriage of Pavey (1976) 10 ALR 259 whereby ‘what comprises the marital relationship for each couple will vary. Marriage involves many elements, some or all of which may be present in a particular marriage.’ The Tribunal considers the principles established in Pavey are broadly consistent with the matters outlined in the Act as appropriate considerations to be undertaken, in relation to the current visa class, when making a determination about the genuineness of a relationship, or the related issue of whether there is a genuine intention to live together as spouses. The Tribunal agrees with the principle that a wide range of factors need to be considered in any given case, taking into account the degree to which these factors may be applied to determine a future intention.

35. To this extent the Tribunal acknowledges the principles established in He v MIBP [2017] FCAFC 206, where the Court held that when considering whether a spouse of de facto relationship between a visa applicant and their spouse is genuine, each of the specific matters contained in reg 1.15A(3) is effectively a question which must be answered.

36. In considering an application for a Prospective Marriage (Temporary) (Class TO) visa, the Tribunal may have regard to the considerations set out in reg 1.15A(3) for spousal relationships: reg 1.15A(4). While it is not appropriate to consider whether the parties are spouses at the time of application or time of decision, an investigation of the parties’ intentions with regard to the definition of spouse in legislation may assist in determining the parties’ aspirations.

37. In Re MILGEA and Dhillon [1990] FCA 144 the Federal Court noted that:

    People enter marriages with 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'. It is not necessarily inconsistent with a genuine marriage relationship that it was entered into by one or both parties with a view to material benefit or advancement, as for example with the hope of becoming eligible to reside in a particular country. The true test, we would suggest the only test, is whether at the time at which the matter has to be decided it can be said that the parties have a mutual commitment to a shared life as husband and wife to the exclusion of others.

38. Having regard to the considerations for a spousal relationship, and the degree to which these factors may be applied to determine a future intention, the Tribunal makes the following findings.

    Financial aspects

39. 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.

40. At hearing the sponsor gave evidence that the parties have no shared assets, liabilities or legal obligations with respect to each other. He gave evidence that the parties do not pool their financial resources and do not have shared banking accounts or other such financial arrangements. The sponsor gave evidence that he and the applicant pay their own day-to-day household expenses from their respective employment incomes and that they are essentially self-reliant financially in their respective countries.

41. There is evidence of a cumulative amount in the sum of $37,800 remittance receipts which have been filed with either the Department or Tribunal since 2015. The sponsor gave evidence at hearing that he did not source any of this amount from bank accounts to which his employment income has been paid, as he used cash for the Australian end of these transactions. As to where the cash came from, the sponsor indicated it was from proceeds from the past sale of a residential property.  The Tribunal did not find this explanation entirely convincing and has therefore not attributed positive weight to remittance receipts.

1. As the parties have lived in different countries throughout their relationship, the Tribunal acknowledges the financial aspect of their relationship may be quite different to those of the two people residing in the one country. Notwithstanding this factor, the Tribunal does not consider it appropriate to give positive weight to this aspect of the parties’ relationship.

   Nature of the household

2. The Tribunal has considered the nature of the household – including any joint responsibility for care and support of children; parties’ living arrangements; and any sharing of housework.

3. The applicant and sponsor both have children from previous relationships. The second named visa applicant is reported to reside with the applicant and to have in 2023 studied the equivalent of year 5 primary school in Vietnam. There is no evidence of financial support being provided by the sponsor for the purpose of supporting the applicant’s children, or of the applicant providing financial support for the sponsor’s children. The Tribunal is not satisfied there is evidence to support a contention the parties share care responsibilities in relation to their respective children.

4. The parties have not established a shared household and the context of their limited shared time together since 2014 does not, in the Tribunal’s opinion, make consideration of the degree of shared housework arrangements a useful indicator of this aspect of their relationship.

5. After reviewing the available evidence, the Tribunal does not consider it appropriate to give positive weight to this aspect of the parties’ relationship.

   Social aspects

6. The Tribunal has considered the social aspects of the relationship – including whether the parties represent themselves to other people as being in a committed relationship with an intention to marry; 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.

7. On the basis of travel records, documentation issued by the Vietnamese authorities, oral evidence at hearing and the sponsor’s movement records, the Tribunal accepts that the sponsor has travelled to Vietnam and spent time with the applicant in 2014, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019 and 2022.  The Tribunal acknowledges the parties contention that their capacity to spend time with each other was constrained by travel restrictions associated with the Covid 19 pandemic and accepts that this would have potentially constrained their ability to have person-to-person contact in the 2020 to 2021 period. When the sponsor’s endeavours to maintain a connection with the applicant and to spend time together as a couple are considered cumulatively, the Tribunal considers it appropriate to give positive weight to this factor.

8. The Tribunal has reviewed the photographs provided in association with the visa and review application and accepts they show the applicant and sponsor together and together in the company of relatives and other people in a variety of settings. The Tribunal considers it appropriate to give positive weight to this factor.

9. The Tribunal has reviewed witness support statements and declarations prepared in 2017, 2018 and 2023, including from the sponsor’s daughter and the applicant’s mother. The Tribunal also had the benefit of the oral evidence of witnesses at hearing who had both spent time with the parties when they were together as a couple.  The Tribunal is satisfied the cumulative evidence from these sources indicate the parties represent themselves to relatives and friends as a coupe in a long distance committed spousal relationship with a wish to be united together in Australia.

10. When considered as a whole, the Tribunal considers it appropriate to give positive weight to the social aspect of the parties’ relationship.

    Nature of the commitment

11. The Tribunal has considered the nature of the 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.

12. The parties claim that they have been in a committed relationship since September 2016. The Tribunal has given positive weight to this factor.

13. The parties have not lived together in a shared household and their claim to periods they have stayed together during the sponsor’s trips to Vietnam between 2014 and 2023 cumulatively amount to only a relatively limited period of time. The Tribunal has given some limited positive weight to this factor

14. The parties claim to communicate with each other on a daily basis and have provided electronic chat communication records covering the 2019 to 2023 period to support this claim. Following the hearing translated extracts of some of these records were filed with the Tribunal.  These communication records consist of extracts from what appear to be a mobile phone. The Tribunal has reviewed the translated communication records and is satisfied they are indicative of spontaneous communication between two people familiar with and supportive of each other’s circumstances. The Tribunal has given positive weight to this evidence.

15. As to the degree of companionship and emotional support in the relationship, the Tribunal is satisfied the parties have demonstrated that there is a reasonable degree of emotional support and companionship in their relationship. In forming this view the Tribunal has taken into account the parties’ demeanour and oral evidence at hearing and the evidence of their communication with each other over the majority of the period in which they have claimed to be in a committed relationship. The applicant and sponsor presented with congruent hopes for their future, which for a mature aged couple were both plausible and reasonable. The Tribunal was also struck by the candour and consistency of their evidence at hearing, given separately, regarding the relative lack of time they have spent together during the applicant’s current trip to Australia on a visitor visa.   Whilst having the opportunity to present as inseparable whilst the applicant has been onshore, their evidence was that the applicant has been primarily with her daughter and recently born grandchild in Melbourne. 

16. The Tribunal is satisfied the parties are sincere in their wish to marry and establish a household together in Australia. The Tribunal is satisfied that the parties consider their relationship as long‑term.

    Assessment of intention to live as spouses

17. The Tribunal understands the delegate’s concern regarding the potential for contrived relationships being utilised to facilitate migration pathways to Australia. The Tribunal shares these concerns.  In the particular circumstances of this case the Tribunal is aware of the Department’s concern that people to whom the parties are connected, either relatives or friends, appear to have entered into contrived relationships for migration purposes.  The Tribunal is also satisfied that the applicant has existing strong familial connections in Australia which provide her with a motivation to achieve permanent residency in Australia.  Whilst raising suspicion, it is the view of the Tribunal that neither of these factors establish the relationship between the parties is not genuine, nor that the applicant and sponsor lack an intention to marry and live together as spouses.  

18. In light of the lack of such clearly adverse evidence and when factors to which positive weight has been attributed, the Tribunal is satisfied the evidence that is before it supports a finding that the applicant and sponsor have a mutual commitment to a shared life as spouses. In summary and having regard to the considerations set out in reg 1.15A(3) for spousal relationships, the Tribunal considers there is sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the applicant and sponsor have a genuine intention to live together as spouses. The applicant therefore meets cl 300.216.

    Do the parties continue to meet time of application requirements?

19. Clause 300.221 requires that at the time of decision, the visa applicant continues to satisfy the criteria in cls 300.211, 300.214, 300.215 and 300.216. That is, that visa applicant intends to marry an Australian citizen, permanent resident or eligible New Zealand citizen; that the parties have met and are known to each other personally; that the parties genuinely intend to marry and intend to do so during the visa period; and that the parties genuinely intend to live together as spouses.

20. Having considered the totality of the evidence, the Tribunal is satisfied that the applicant continues to intend to marry the sponsor who is a citizen of Australia and the parties continue to know each other personally, therefore the visa applicant continues to meet cls 300.211 and 200.214. The Tribunal finds that the applicant continues to satisfy cl 300.215. On the basis of all of the evidence, the Tribunal is satisfied that the applicant and sponsor genuinely intend to live together as spouses at the time of decision, in that they intend to be validly married, with a mutual commitment to a shared life together, and that they intend to form a relationship which is genuine and continuing. Therefore, the visa applicant continues to satisfy cl 300.216.

21. Having considered the available evidence, the Tribunal is satisfied that the applicant continues to satisfy the criteria in cls 300.211, 300.214, 300.215 and 300.216. Accordingly, the Tribunal finds that cl 300.221 is met.

    Is there any impediment to the marriage?

22. Clause 300.221A requires that at the time of decision, there is no impediment to the marriage in Australian law. If the applicant or prospective spouse is under 18, the Minister must be satisfied that they will turn 18 before the end of the period within which the intended marriage is to take place, or have an Australian court order issued under s 12 of the Marriage Act authorising the parties to marry. In the latter case, the Minister must be satisfied the marriage will take place: cl 300.221B.

23. The Tribunal finds both the applicant and sponsor are over the age of 18 years. The Tribunal is satisfied the applicant has divorced his previous spouse.

24. As there is not an impediment to the proposed marriage under Australian law, cl 300.221A is satisfied.

    The second named visa applicant

25. The Tribunal is satisfied on the basis of the information in the visa application form that the sponsorship referred to in cl 300.213 in respect of the person who satisfies the primary criteria includes sponsorship of the second named visa applicant, Master Gia Thinh Nguyen, Accordingly, the Tribunal finds that the second named visa applicant meets cl 300.312.

26. Given the findings above, the appropriate course is to remit the application for the visas to the Minister to consider the remaining criteria for a Subclass 300 visas.

    DECISION

27. The Tribunal remits the application for a Prospective Marriage (Temporary) (Class TO) visa for reconsideration, with the direction that the first named visa applicant meets the following criteria for a Subclass 300 (Prospective Marriage) visa:

    ·cl 300.211 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations;

    ·cl 300.214 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations;

    ·cl 300.215 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations;

    ·cl 300.216 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations;

    ·cl 300.221 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations;

    ·cl 300.221A of Schedule 2 to the Regulations

28. The Tribunal remits the application for a Prospective Marriage (Temporary) (Class TO) visa for reconsideration, with the direction that the second named visa applicant meets the following criteria for a Subclass 300 (Prospective Marriage) visa:

    ·cl 300.312 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations.

    David Barker
    Member