Tran (Migration)

Tran (Migration) [2024] AATA 728 (27 March 2024)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division
REVIEW APPLICANT:  Ms Thi Tay Tran
VISA APPLICANTS:  Mr Van De Tran
Master Le Gia Viet Tran
Master Le Gia Khoa Tran
REPRESENTATIVE:  Ms Myyen Tran
CASE NUMBER:  1915254
HOME AFFAIRS REFERENCE(S):          BCC2018/3934508
MEMBER:Namoi Dougall
DATE:27 March 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.300.212 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations
·cl.300.213 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.

And the secondary applicants meet the following criteria for a Prospective Marriage (Temporary) (Class TO) visa:
·cl.300.311.

Statement made on 27 March 2024 at 4:10pm

CATCHWORDS

MIGRATION – Prospective Marriage (Temporary) (Class TO) visa – Subclass 300 (Prospective Marriage) – genuine and continuing relationship – review applicant’s regular travel to Vietnam – joint international travel – plans for joint household – shared social activities – evidence of extensive communication – decision under review remitted

LEGISLATION

Migration Act 1958, ss 5, 65
Migration Regulations 1994, Schedule 2, cls 300.211-300.216, 300.221, 300.311; r 1.15

STATEMENT OF DECISION AND REASONS

APPLICATION FOR REVIEW

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).
The visa applicants applied for the visas on 26 June 2018. 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. Relevantly to this matter the primary criteria include cls 300.216 and 300.221.
The delegate refused to grant the visas on 7 June 2019 on the basis that the first named visa applicant did not satisfy cl.300.215 and cl 300.216 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations because the delegate, in light of the little evidence, was not satisfied that the relationship was seen as a long term one by the visa applicant or the review applicant and that the marriage would take place within the visa period.
The review applicant appeared before the Tribunal on 27 February 2023 to give evidence and present arguments. The Tribunal also received oral evidence from Mr Van De Tran, (the visa applicant). The Tribunal hearing was conducted with the assistance of an interpreter in the Vietnamese and English languages.
The review applicant was represented in relation to the review.
For the following reasons, the Tribunal has concluded that the matter should be remitted for reconsideration.

CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE

The issue in the present case is whether the visa applicant meets the requirements of cls 300.211, 300.214, 300.215 and, in particular, 300.216 at the time of application and, in accordance with cl.300.221, at the time of decision.
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.

The applicants’ background and migration history

The visa applicant is a Vietnamese national born in 1971. His parents and five siblings reside in Vietnam. The visa applicant visited Australia on a tourist visa from 22 April 2018 to 27 April 2018. The visa applicant was previously married to Ms Duy Tran Le from 1 January 2000 to 21 August 2017. A copy of the Decision of Recognition of Divorce by Mutual Consent and Agreement of the Person Concerned issued by The People’s Court of Vung Tai City, Vietnam on 21 August 2017 was provided to the Department. There are two children from this relationship who are the secondary applicants.
The review applicant is a national of Vietnam. Her mother and five sisters and a brother reside in the United States of America. A further two sisters and one brother live in Australia. The review applicant was previously married to Mr Eng Seng Tran from 1 March 2001 to 1 April 2018. The visa application also stated that the review applicant’s former spouse gambled, and they separated in 2015 before their divorce in 2018. A copy of a Divorce Order issued by the Federal Circuit Court of Australia on 28 February 2018 was provided to the Department.
The review applicant first entered Australia on a Subclass 309 visa on 16 December 2001 and she became an Australian citizen on 17 May 2005.

Evidence provided to the Department

The review applicant provided to the Department a relationship statement as part of a statutory declaration dated 15 June 2018 (the review applicant’s relationship statement). The review applicant sated that her former marriage was turbulent with constant arguments and fighting due to her former spouse’s gambling. They separated in 2015 and divorced in April 2017. There were no children from this relationship.
The visa applicant provided to the Department a relationship statement as part of a statutory declaration dated 15 June 2018 (the visa applicant’s relationship statement). The visa applicant stated that when their second child was born in 2009 the problems in the relationship became more consistent and he and his former spouse argued frequently. In 2014 they mutually decided to separate and then they divorced in 2017. The two children from the relationship reside with him and he is wholly responsible for their welfare and development.
Hearing – review applicant’s evidence
The review applicant lives in St John’s Park and she has lived there for 8 years. She has been on the pension for nearly a year. She stopped working a long time ago but cannot remember exactly. It was ten years ago after she had an accident at the beach. Her pension is her only income.
The visa applicant works for maritime, he is a manager for one of the areas at his work. He works in the office, and he is the boss. The Tribunal asked what the company he worked for does and the review applicant stated that all she knows that he is the manager, and he manages the shipping. She is not sure of the name of the company or his title but she does know he is the boss and manages. The Tribunal asked how long had he worked there and the review applicant stated for 13 or 14 years from when they were still friends.
The review applicant sated that she and her family came from HCMC and they lived there. Her former spouse came from province Soc Tiang about 100 kilometres from HCMC.
Hearing –visa applicant’s evidence
The visa applicant stated that he works for VMS South and the company is involved in the safety of the boat and shipment. For example, the lighthouses and buoys. He his two companies, for one he is the manager of the company’s hotel, and he is also the boss or assistant to the manager in the office as there are 30 employees. He has worked for the company for over 30 years.
He lives in Vung Tau with his brother, his sister-in-law, two nephews, and his two children. There are three bedrooms and he confirmed that he shared with his children.

Initial meeting and development of their relationship

The visa application stated that their relationship developed from that of friends. They are now engaged and looking forward to getting married in Australia so the review applicant’s family can attend.
The applicant stated in their relationship statements as set out below. The review applicants’ statement are in the dot points and the visa applicant’s statement are in italics as follows:
·     The applicants first met in Vietnam in 2007 although the review applicant cannot remember the exact date, hence the applicants put the date as being 1 January 2007. At that time, they were both with their former spouses and they met through mutual friends and became acquaintances.
The visa applicant has known the review applicant through mutual friends since 2007. When they met, they were still happily married, and he cannot recall the exact date they met as it was a long time ago.
·     Every time the review applicant travelled to Vietnam she would meet up with her friends and the visa applicant was amongst the group.
·     The visa applicant separated from his former spouse in 2014 and she separated from her former spouse in 2015. Since her separation she would visit Vietnam every year and when she visited Vietnam, she would meet up with the visa applicant and their other mutual friends. Her friends were all aware of her separation from her former spouse.
·     In 2016 she visited Vietnam on 2 occasions, August 2016 and October 2016, and on each occasion, she met with the visa applicant. When she returned to Australia the applicants would contact each other via Viber and phone.
Whenever the review applicant travelled to Vietnam they would meet up through mutual friends.
·     By 2017 the applicants had become close friends and were able to confide in each other about their troubles in their marriages and they sought to comfort each other.
In June 2017 and September 2017, she spent time with the visa applicant, and they went to many places together. In 2017 they became close friends and decided to pursue their relationship as they felt they had many things in common and they were separated from their former spouses.
When the review applicant was in Vietnam, they spent time together and their relationship became more than friendship. They loved each other and the love had grown overtime. The applicants have been comforting each other throughout the years and have grown to have a profound love.
·     In March 2018 the visa applicant came to Australia for a week. He had a chance to meet her family in Australia.
The visa applicant came to Australia in March 2018 on a visitor visa. During his visit he and the visa applicant spent more time together as a couple. When he returned to Vietnam the applicants missed each other terribly and he proposed to her over the phone. The visa applicant accepted without hesitation.
·     In April 2018 the review applicant travelled to Vietnam to be with the visa applicant, and they became engaged on 30 April 2018. They had approximately 20 guests at the engagement which included family relatives and friends.
On 30 April 2018 the applicants held their engagement with small intimate celebration of their closest loved ones, around 20 guests.
On 11 December 2018, the visa applicant was interviewed by a delegate and was recorded to have stated, amongst other things, as follows:
·     He has known the visa applicant for around 10 years, and it was about 2007 that they met during an outing with a group of friends in Vung Tau. They went on other outings with a group of friends and in 2014 started to have feeling for each other. However, the feelings for each other only grew from 2016.
·     The review applicant often came to Vietnam, and they went on outings every time she came.
·     The engagement was held at Huu Nghi restaurant in Vung Tau where he and his parents live. His parents did not attend as his father has high blood pressure and his mother stayed home to look after him. His siblings and friends attended.
·     He has lived with his brother since he separated in 2014.
·     He introduced the review applicant to his parents in 2017. He cannot remember when she came twice to Vietnam in 2017.
·     After the engagement the applicant stayed at a hotel at night and at his home during the day.
Hearing – review applicant’s evidence
The Tribunal asked the review applicant why she returned to Vietnam on a regular basis prior to her engagement to the visa applicant. She does not have any family left in Vietnam, but she has many friends, and it is where she was born and grew up. She has a lot of memories, so she often returns to visit friends. The group of friends she visits include the visa applicant.
There are seven people in her friendship group. The first person is Mr Thanh, Mr Tuyen, Mr Dung, Mr Huy and Mr Ban. Some live in HCMC and they hang out when they were young. She knew them before 2007. The Tribunal asked if they met at school and the review applicant stated no. When she was young, she liked to play music and sing and some of the friends liked to hang out with her and later their friends also came to hang out with them. She started to sing in 2007 and they started to hang out together. She was singing before that.
The Tribunal asked where she sang, and she said it was in her house in the sun room. The house was in Thi Nghe. The Tribunal asked how the friends knew to come to her home. The review applicant stated that Mr Dung was her neighbour. Mr Dung is a close friend of the review applicant and after he brought his friends over. The review applicant confirmed that the first time she met Mr Dung and the others was in 2007. After further questioning the review applicant stated that she met Mr Dung earlier. At that time, she had a hair salon and they would hang around and she would occasionally cut their hair. She operated the hair salon at the same address. The review applicant confirmed that she owned the house, and it was sold a long time ago.
The Tribunal referred to the review applicant living in Australia and being married and the review applicant stated that they hung out with them when she was very young. The Tribunal referred to the date and that it could not be 2007. The review applicant stated that this could not be right and it was in the 1990s when she was thirty something years old. The review applicant stated that she cannot keep track of the time but she met the visa applicant when his son was 5 years old and that son is now 20 years old.
The Tribunal referred to her meeting her group of friends in the 1990s and asked when did the visa applicant become part of the group. The review applicant stated that she cannot remember the year but his son was 5 or 6 years old. The Tribunal asked which one of her friends brought the visa applicant into the friendship group. She cannot remember who came first but there was Mr Dung first, followed by Mr Bun and then the rest came along but she does not remember the order. The Tribunal asked again who introduced the visa applicant to the group and the review applicant stated Mr Dong. The review applicant sated that she could not remember when Mr Dong introduced the visa applicant to the group.
The Tribunal referred to it being likely that the review applicant would have been introduced to the visa applicant as soon as he joined the group. The review applicant stated that it was not a formal introduction, they just met and said hi and they became friends. The Tribunal asked when they were introduced, and the review applicant stated she cannot remember.
The Tribunal asked if the group of friends always met at her home and the applicant stated yes. The Tribunal asked where they met after she left to came to live in Australia and the review applicant she met as sometimes they called her and sometimes, she called them. The Tribunal asked again where they met, and the review applicant stated that they would go to Vung Tau. The Tribunal asked if she met the friends in Vung Tau every time she returned to Vietnam. The review applicant stated that prior to traveling she would advise them her date of arrival. Mr Dung and Mr Bun lived in HCMC and they would go to the airport to pick her up and they would drive to Vung Tau to meet up with the others as they work in Vung Tau. She would stay in a hotel in Vung Tau. She would do this every time she returned to Vietnam, she would stay in HCMC for a short time and a longer time in Vung Tau.
The review applicant stated that in HCMC she would see Mr Bun and he drives her around. Mr Dung also lived in HCMC but as he has to work, she would see him when they went to Vung Tau together. The Tribunal asked again when she met the visa applicant for the first time. She could not remember the date or month, but she remembers when she met him he was with his spouse and his son was 6 year old and they met near a stand where they sell drinks.
The Tribunal asked what did she and her friends do in Vung Tau and the review applicant stated that she was taken out to restaurants, cafés and for long drives. The Tribunal asked if any of her other friends had been there with their spouses and the review applicant said a couple of times the visa applicant brought his spouse. The Tribunal asked if her other friends bought their spouses to Vung Tau and the review applicant stated no, as she met their spouses at their homes but not on the trips. The applicant stated that the spouses would come to the restaurants but not for coffee and drives. The review applicant confirmed that this happened every time she returned to Vietnam.
At the hearing the Tribunal asked about the time she met the visa applicant and the review applicant stated that as she stated earlier, they met each other first with a couple of the guys when they slowly brought in new friends. They became good friends and really care for each other. The Tribunal asked when they started to care for each other, and the review applicant stated that when she likes someone she hangs out with them more and gets to know them. They are nice people, and they get on well with her. The review applicant stated that she is speaking about all of her friends. It has been a long time time since they met each other, and she moved to Australia and has gone back to visit them. The Tribunal asked again when she and the visa applicant started to have feelings for each other. The review applicant stated that when the visa applicant broke up with his spouse, he called her and spoke to her about the breakup. She noticed that he was unhappy, and she often called to check on him and comfort him.
The Tribunal asked when she called him to comfort him, and the review applicant stated that when she divorced her spouse and around the same time as when the visa applicant broke up from his spouse. The visa applicant was more stressed than her about the situation, so she was the one providing him with support. She really cared for him at that time just like good friends care for each other. After his stress lessened, she started to have feelings for hm. The Tribunal asked again when this was, and the review applicant stated that she cannot remember. She can only remember when he proposed to her, and they were in love. The Tribunal referred to her stating that it was when she and her spouse broke up and the review applicant stated that was in 2016 and 2017. The review applicant confirmed that 2016 to 2017 they started to have feelings for each other.
At the hearing the Tribunal asked when the visa applicant told her he loved her and the review applicant stated that it was done over the phone, and he proposed to her as well. He did both during the same phone call. This was in 2017. The review applicant confirmed that prior to traveling to Australia the visa applicant had proposed to her.

At the hearing the review applicant confirmed that she started to have feelings for the visa applicant in 2016 or 2017.
Hearing –visa applicant’s evidence
At the hearing the visa applicant stated that he met the visa applicant in 2007 when his elder son was 4 or 5 years old. They have a group of friends they hang out in HCMC and Vung Tau. The Tribunal asked who the friends and he stated Mr Ban, Mr Huy and the other is Ms Ngoc. The Tribunal asked how the group of friends got to know each other. The visa applicant stated that they got to know each other as they are interested in classic cars. Whenever the review applicant returned, they often took her for a drive in the classic car group. There are not just friends from the classic car group but there are also friends from work. There is one person who worked for him and others from other places.
The Tribunal asked if the friends were his friends and he stated that they were friends of both of them, The Tribunal asked when he joined the classic car group, and he stated quite some time ago, but he cannot remember. The group is called Saigon classic car. The Tribunal asked if he joined the group before or when he met the review applicant. He stated that he is trying to remember correctly, and he thinks he joined around the same time as he met the review applicant. He joined the group when he first heard about the group as he has an interest in classic cars. He joined himself and no one introduced them. They met regularly and they would organise trips to go out together for a drive.
The members of the group are not located in same area, some live in HCMC and some live in Vung Tau that is why they often organise the trip either to HCMC or Vung Tau. He was not amongst the first lot of members who joined the club, so he does not know when it started, he joined when he got his car. The group was on Facebook, and he is no longer a member as he is very busy. He ceased to be a member 5 or 6 years ago, but he still keeps in contact.
At the hearing the Tribunal asked who the review applicant’s friends in the group were when he first met the review applicant and the visa applicant stated Mr Bun only in the classic car group. The other friends were Mr Huy who worked with him at the same company. Another of the review applicant’s friends was Mr Dong Mit.
At the hearing the visa applicant stated that he met her with a group of people when she returned to Vietnam, and she was with the group of people when she returns to Vietnam and they keep in contact to now. When he first met her, they went to a restaurant, and they sang karaoke together with a group of her and friends and his friends. His spouse was with him.
At the hearing the Tribunal asked when they started to have feelings for each other, and the review applicant stated that they met in 2007 but they only started to have feelings for each other in 2016. At that time he had separated from his former spouse and he noticed that his children really liked the review applicant and the review applicant really cared for his children. Due to that he started to have feelings for her.
The visa applicant stated that he remembers the date it was on 17 August 2017 he told her that he loved her over the phone. He also proposed on 17 August 2017. The visa applicant confirmed that he proposed to the review applicant during the same phone call that he told her he loved her.

Do the parties genuinely intend to live together?

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). 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.

Financial aspects

Evidence provided to the Department

The visa application stated that the applicants do not have a joint bank account. They have not yet combined or pooled their resource finances as they live in two different countries pending the sponsorship process. They lived as a couple after their engagement, and they were both responsible for their expenses as a couple.
At his interview the visa applicant stated that the review applicant does not work as she had an accident 7 to 8 years ago. After being questioned he stated the accident was a fall when asked what kind of fall he stated a fall in a lake. Before her accident she worked doing nails. The review applicant has to take medicine twice a day to reduce the pain.

Evidence provided to the Tribunal

The review applicant provided to the Tribunal bank statement for her CBA account #9294 for the period 1 January 2018 to 31 December 2023.
Hearing – review applicant’s evidence
At the hearing the Tribunal asked if they have ever provided each other with financial support. The review applicant stated no, as they both have their own income. The Tribunal asked how they would manage the finances if the visa applicant gets the visa and the review applicant stated that they would manage their finances together. She thinks the money should go together into a joint account and they should share their financial resources from there as she is getting older now.
The review applicant stated that she pays for her airline tickets when she travels to Vietnam she stays in a hotel or at the home of the visa applicant’s brother-in-law. The Tribunal asked if she stays mainly at the brother-in-law’s home or at a hotel and the review applicant stated that during the day, she stays at the home with the family including the two sons and that the home only has two bedrooms and is very small so in the evening she returns to the hotel. Sometimes they would visit the visa applicant’s parents who live in Vung Tau.
The Tribunal referred to the review applicant travelling back a number of times but that the Tribunal has only been provided with a couple of hotel receipts and asked where the other receipts were. The review applicant stated that she had stayed at many different hotels in Vung Tau and every time when she got the receipt, she would take a photo but for some reason she lost them all. She pays cash and the visa applicant would give her cash when she returned to Vietnam, and she used that cash to pay for the hotels. The Tribunal referred to not having anything to establish her stay.
Hearing – visa applicant’s evidence
The visa applicant stated that he provides money to the review applicant when she comes to Vietnam to spend. He pays for her airline tickets, and he pays for the hotels. The visa applicant added that the review applicant books and pays for the tickets, but he reimburses her when she arrives in Vietnam. He just gave her $10,000 for the trip so she can spend it on whatever she wants to spend it on, he does not reimburse the exact amount. The visa applicant confirmed he is the one who directly pays for the hotels.
At the hearing the visa applicant sated that if he comes to Australia, he has savings in the bank and he plans to bring it to Australia and spend some for a wedding. Then they will look for an opportunity to open a small shop or business to run. The visa applicant stated that they will share expenses as they live together in the same house.

Nature of the Household

Evidence provided to the Department

The visa application stated that when the visa applicant visited the review applicant in Australia in 2018, they would socialise with her family and friends. When the review applicant visited him in Vietnam, they would visit friends and she spent time with his family and children. When in the same household they would take care of the children together.
At the interview the visa applicant stated as follows:
·Every time the review applicant travels to Vietnam she stays at his home and cares for his children. They spend time with the children every day and spent time at night at a hotel.
·He stated that the review applicant stayed with him and his children two times in 2016, two times in 2017, and two times in 2018. She often travels to Vietnam and stays some weeks with him before she travels to the United States of America and then returns to Vietnam.
·Review applicant’s trip to Vietnam in 2016. The visa applicant stated that the review applicant travelled to Vietnam in August 2016 and then travelled to the United States of America and then came back to Vietnam in October 2016. He cannot remember how long the review applicant stayed in Vietnam in October 2016.
·Review applicant’s trip to Vietnam in 2017. The visa applicant stated that the review applicant travelled to the United States of America in early July and stayed there until the middle of August. She came back to Vietnam in September 2017 and stayed for about four to five weeks before returning to Australia.
·The applicants’ trips in 2018. The visa applicant stated that he travelled to Australia from 21 to 27 April 2018 before they returned to Vietnam together to hold the engagement party on the 30 April 2018. The review applicant travelled to the United States of America in June 2018 then came back to Vietnam on the 16 October 2018 and stayed for 12 days before returning to Australia.
·When he was in Australia he stayed at a hotel and during the day at the review applicant's home. He went to her home for the night of the 25 April 2018 and they went together to the airport to travel to Vietnam.

Evidence provided to the Tribunal
Review applicant’s travel

Departmental records indicate that the review applicant was out of Australia after their engagement on 30 April 2018 as set out below. The Tribunal was subsequently provided with the review applicant’s passport which indicate that the review applicant travelled either Vietnam the United States of America or both as follows:
·a further two times in 2018, from 19 May 2018 to 19 June 2018 to the USA and 20 September 2018 to 16 October 2018 to Vietnam.
·Again in 2019 the review applicant was out of Australia twice, from 30 April 2019 to14 May 2019 to Vietnam and 13 June 2019 to 12 September 2019 to the USA and perhaps Vietnam.
·In 2022 the review applicant was out of Australia three times from 6 April 2022 to 6 July 2022 to the USA, 23 July 2022 to 3 August 2022 to Vietnam, and 11 August 2022 to 7 November 2022 to the USA and Vietnam.
·In 2023 the review applicant was out of Australia from 25 April 2023 to 12 May 2023 to Vietnam.
Provided in relation to the review applicant’s travel was the following:
·Boarding passes dated 30 April 2019 for a flight Sydney to Ho Chi Minh City (HCMC) and 13 May 2019 for a flight HCMC to Sydney and a what appears to be a hotel receipt dated 13 May 2019.
·A travel itinerary for the review applicant to travel from Sydney to HCMC from 23 July 2022 to 3 August 2022. Boarding passes were provided for the flights.
·A Jetstar itinerary for flights from Sydney to HCMC and return on 25 April 2023 to 11 May 2023. A Sunflower Hotel receipt for two nights from 25 April 2023 and another receipt from Marin Hotel for one night, 7 May 2023.
·A Jetstar itinerary for flights from Sydney to HCMC and return on 20 February 20204 to 3 March 2024.
Photos of applicants together
The photos provided to the Tribunal are as follows:
·6 photos of the engagement party
·5 photos taken at the airport which include the applicants and the visa applicant children.
·2 photos of the applicants dining with friends and the children which appear to be taken on the same day as they arrived, the applicant and the children as well as the friends are wearing the same clothes as they all wore in the photos taken at the airport.
·6 photos of the applicants and the visa applicant’s children at a hotel. The applicant and the children are wearing the same clothes as the photos taken at the airport and dining out with friends.
·7 photos taken at a beachside location which include the applicants and the visa applicant’s children.
·2 phots of the applicants in a hotel room.
·2 photos standing next to a car.
Provided to the Tribunal prior to the hearing on 13 March 2024 as part of a bundle of documents were a number of photos as follows:
2018
·4 photos at the review applicant’s home which appear to be taken on the same day as they are both wearing the same clothes.
·4 photos taken at Sydney airport sitting at a table.
·1 photo labelled heading out for dinner in Sydney which the review applicant is holding a cat.
·1 photo of the applicants with the visa applicant’s children and 2 more both of which have the same background.
·2 photos of the applicants together as a couple, one of which is labelled going out in Vietnam.
·8 photos of the applicants which appear to be taken on the same day as the applicants are in the same clothes, one including a younger couple and 4 with the visa applicant’s mother.
·9 photos of the applicants which appear to be taken on the same day as they are wearing the same clothes. Some photos appear to have been taken with the applicant’s mother, some with his father who appears to be in hospital.
·19 photos of the applicants at the airport on what appears to be two separate days. There are photos of the review applicant with what appears to be the visa applicant’s son.
2019
·19 photos of the applicants at the airport.
·28 Photos of the applicants which appear to have been taken on the same day as they are wearing the same clothes. 9 photos are with the visa applicant’s mother including having a meal. 18 photos are with the visa applicant’s children at what appears to be two locations. The children are wearing the same clothes in all of the photos.
2023
·8 photos at the airport.
·8 photos of the applicants which appear to have been taken at the same time, there is a photo of the applicants with both of the visa applicant’s children and some including the review applicant with the visa applicant’s children.
·2 photos of the applicants together wearing the same clothes as the photos taken with the visa applicant’s sons.
2024
·4 selfie photos of the applicants at the airport.
Hearing – review applicant’s evidence
The Tribunal asked if she registered her temporary stay when she was in Vietnam to support that she stayed in hotels. The review applicant stated that she has new ones but for the old receipts they were on her Nokia phone and when she changed phones she lost all the photos. The Tribunal asked about temporary registration and she stated that she is not aware of this as when she registered at the hotel, she only had to present her passport. She believes that she has two new receipts for hotels recently, but all the other ones were stored in her old phone, and they are gone now. She cannot remember when she lost her phone, but it has been a while now. The Tribunal stated that if it has been a while why has she not provided more receipts after that and why only a few days for the most recent receipts.
The applicant stated that she only styed a few days in HCMC and spent most of the time in Vung Tau. The Tribunal asked where the receipts for Vung Tau were and the review applicant stated that she had lost the phone. The Tribunal stated that the review applicant had stated earlier that she had lost her phone a long time ago so where were the receipts and the review applicant stated that she lost the phone before she got the two receipts, and all other receipts were on that phone.
The Tribunal referred to her changing her story about her phone, the application has been going on for a long time and there is very limited evidence of where she actually stayed in Vietnam.
The Tribunal referred to the review applicant travelling ten times from Australia after their engagement and there is very little evidence of where she stayed in Vietnam which may mean that she was not staying with the visa applicant.
The review applicant sated that all the evidence she can rely on are the photos. Every single trip when she returned, she took photos, and those photos have the date and the years. Even some photos show that the visa applicant took her to the airport. The Tribunal stated that photos do not establish that they are in a relationship where they intend to live together as spouses as many of the photos were taken at the airport. The Tribunal also referred to many photos being taken of one event, or they are taken on one day so that can indicate that they are not spending tome together with the visa applicant.
The review applicant stated that they will live in the home that she rents as it has three bedrooms. The elder son will continue to study and the younger one is still studying. The Tribunal asked what school the youngest will go to and the review applicant stated that when they settle down, they will look close by for the young one. The elder one should go to the school that he wants to go to. The eldest one was studying electrical and mechanical. The Tribunal asked where he is studying, and the review applicant stated that he is studying at a university in Canada. He only recently enrolled and started to study and went there himself. She does not know how long the course is for. The youngest son is in year nine.
Hearing – visa applicant’s evidence
The Tribunal asked where he intended to live in Australia and the visa applicant stated in the beginning, they would live at the home where the review applicant lives now. He would then sell his property in Vietnam and buy a property in Australia.
The visa applicant stated that the review applicant stayed in a hotel when she was in Vietnam, and she did not have to register. During the daytime he still has to work, after work he returned to the hotel to stay with her. The Tribunal asked if he has the receipt and the visa applicant stated that he took photos of the receipts and stored them in his old phone and he changed his phone multiple times. Before that he shared the images with the review applicant. After that he changed his phone multiple times, 2 to 3 times. The Tribunal asked how he shared the photos and the visa applicant stated that the review applicant also took photos, and he believes she still has photos. The word share is misunderstood. He took photos and she took photos, and they stored the receipts in their phones, but it has been seven years now and his phone was very old.
The Tribunal asked about his plans for his children in Australia. The review applicant stated that at this moment he is waiting for the visa to be granted. As to him and the review applicant, first they would marry and then he would ask if his eldest, who is in Canada studying, if he wanted to transfer to Australia to study. The youngest in in year 9 and he likes the review applicant a lot so when he comes to Australia, he will bring him as well. The visa applicant stated he is paying for his eldest to study in Canada.
During the daytime the review applicant helps his brother with the house chores. She also helps to look after his sons after their study. He works and when he returns after work, he helps cleaning the house and picking up toys when the children made a mess. He also helps with washing the dishes.

Social aspects

Evidence provided to the Department

As stated above, the visa application stated that when the visa applicant was in Australia, he socialised with the review applicant’s family and friends. When the review applicant visits him in Vietnam, they would visit his friends and spend time with his family and children.
The visa applicant also stated that they have had the same group of friends for many years. They socialise with friends and family and are recognised as a couple. The visa applicant has travelled to Australia to see the review applicant and she has travelled to Vietnam to spend time with his children and him.
Provided to the Department were statutory declarations in support of the relationship as follows:
·     Ms Thi Tuyet Mai Phan date 15 June 2018 in which she stated:
o   She is the neighbour of the review applicant and has known her for three years. She is very close friends with the review applicant, and they often have dinner together.
o   She first heard from the review applicant about her love and new relationship with the visa applicant in 2017.
o   In 2018 the visa applicant visited Australia and she had the opportunity of meeting him and they all had dinner together.
o   Miss Phan believes that the applicants are in a genuine and continuing relationship because she has observed them to be very loving towards each other. When she sees review applicant, she is always very happy when she talks about the visa applicant, and she is very excited for when they can get married in Australia. Miss Phan has also seen photos of the couple at their engagement in Vietnam in April 2018.
·     Ms Thi Bao Chau Tran, the review applicant’s stepsister dated 15 June 2018 in which she stated that she has known the review applicant all of her life and the visa applicant since their courtship. Miss Tran was told about the review applicant falling in love with the visa applicant and she had the pleasure of meeting the visa applicant when he came to Australia. She sees her sister regularly and often hears positive things about her relationship and the visa applicant. She has met the visa applicant once and has spoken to him on the phone briefly. She believes their relationship is genuine and continuing because they are ready to get married and her sister the review applicant is sponsoring the visa applicant. The review applicant looks much happier and is very much in love. The relationship has had a positive effect on the review applicant’s life and she is very happy to see that her sister is shining. The review applicant is very excited at the prospect of having the visa applicant come to Australia to be with her and about having a family again with her new stepchildren.
The delegate stated in the decision that the Department was provided with photos of the couple together and with friends at various social occasions. Photos were also provided of the engagement.
Evidence provided to the Tribunal
Provided to the Department were statements in support of the relationship as follows:
·Ms Thi Tuyet Mai Phan date 22 November 2023 in which she stated:
oShe lives next door to the review applicant, and they see each other nearly every day. The review applicant comes over to her home sometimes to join for dinner.
oIn 2017 she had not seen the review applicant for a few days so became worried and went over to her home to check on her. She saw that the review applicant had a guest over and this was the first time she met the visa applicant. The review applicant introduced the visa applicant as a very special person and Ms Phan saw the review applicants face light up and she could see she was very happy.
oAbout a month later the review applicant asked her to keep an eye on her home while she was going to Vietnam to visit the visa applicant. When the review applicant returned to Australia, she was a completely different person and openly spoke of her fiancé the visa applicant.
oThroughout the COVID-19 pandemic period, the review applicant became increasingly depressed and expressed to her the difficulty of not being able to visit the visa applicant in Vietnam. Besides the short introduction to the visa applicant in 2017 she has had a few chances to speak with him on the phone when he and the visa applicant are talking on video calls.
oMs Phan believes that the long friendship the applicants have has built a strong connection and commitment.
·Ms Ngoc Cuc Pham dated 22 November 2023i n which she states as follows:
oShe stated that the review applicant and she have known each other for many years and maintain a really close friendship. They regularly visit each other and often go out together to have dinner.
oShe came to know about the visa applicant around 2017. The review applicant had confided in her that she had started to feel positive about herself again because a good friend she had known for a long time had lifted her spirits. The review applicant told her she was falling in love again.
oIn March 2018 she met the visa applicant briefly as he had come to Australia and was staying at the review applicants home.
oShe recalls that the following month the review applicant missed the visa applicant so much she booked a flight to Vietnam to see him and it was on this trip that the applicants held their engagement.
Hearing – review applicant’s evidence
The Tribunal asked if the applicant has any plans for social activities and meeting friends The review applicant has family here and at first, they would hang around with her family. From there he will be able to meet other people. She is hoping he will be able to get work, or he will open a small business.
Hearing – visa applicant’s evidence
The visa applicant stated after the wedding they will meet up with the review applicant’s family in Australia and her friends. He also plans to go back to Vietnam every year to visit his mother and the group of friends that they have. If they can he would like to go to the USA to meet her family who are there.

Nature of persons’ commitment to each other

Evidence provided to the Department

The visa application stated that the applicants are no longer young and have known each other for many years even when they were still married to their former spouses. They have gotten to know each other over the years and the relationship has developed and they are committed to each other.
The review applicant stated in her relationship statement they provide each other love and support. They love each other more and more every day and have been through good times and hard times together. The review applicant loves the visa applicant’s children dearly as she does not have any children herself. The review applicant and her would like to get married and start their lives together as a family. They are committed to each other and are of mature age and want to spend the rest of their lives together.
The visa applicant stated in his relationship statement that the applicants feel blessed that his children love and accept the review applicant because she also loves them very much as she does not have any children of her own. They plan to have a wedding in Australia for the visa applicant's family and friends to attend. He'd like to be reunited with the visa applicant so they can live as a family.
Provided to the Department were twenty screenshots of Viber call history from November 2016 to January 2018.
Evidence provided to the Tribunal
Provided were untranslated screenshots of Viber call history. The only information as to when the calls were made that the Tribunal can make out as no translations were provided is that the calls were made in 2016 to 2019. Also provided were what appear to be screenshots of each of the applicants’ video calls made in 2022. From the time of the call, the background and what the applicants were wearing, a number of photos were taken during each video call so not each photo represents a different video call. Subsequently additional similar screenshots were provided, however, unfortunately these too did not have any dates and for the same reason a number of photos were taken during a single video chat.
Also provided were the review applicant’s Vodafone accounts for the period 20 January 2019 to 19 March 2019 during which 3 calls, either by phone or WiFi had been made to the visa applicant.
Provided to the Tribunal prior to the hearing on 13 March 2024 as part of a bundle of documents were a number of screenshots of the applicant’s chat on an online application and photos of the applicants taken while they were on a video chat as follows:

2017

·20 screenshots of the applicant’s chat on an online application which are untranslated and, therefore, the Tribunal can only read the year. One screenshot indicates a chat in 2016 while the rest are from 2017.

2018

·The review applicants Vodafone account indicating that the applicant called the visa applicant five times during the period 20 January 2018 to 21 March 2018.
·38 untranslated screenshots of the applicant’s chat on an online application. 3 photos which may have been taken during a video chat.

2020

·10 untranslated screenshots of the applicant’s chat on an online application.
·27 photos taken during video chats between the applicants. As referred to above from the time of the call, the background and what the applicants were wearing, a number of photos were taken during each video call so not each photo represents a different video call.

2021

·21 photos taken during video chats between the applicants. As referred to above from the time of the call, the background and what the applicants were wearing, a number of photos were taken during each video call so not each photo represents a different video call.

2022

·6 photos taken during video chats between the applicants. As referred to above from the time of the call, the background and what the applicants were wearing, a number of photos were taken during each video call so not each photo represents a different video call.

2023

·10 photos taken during video chats between the applicants. As referred to above from the time of the call, the background and what the applicants were wearing, a number of photos were taken during each video call so not each photo represents a different video call.

Hearing – review applicant’s evidence

The Tribunal asked why they have not gotten married, and the review applicant stated that they have had an engagement in Vietnam and as she has a family here, she would like to have her wedding here. The engagement was in 2018 and she wants to have the visa applicant come to Australia after that and have a wedding here. After the application was refused there was the pandemic for three years.
The Tribunal asked why they did not get married in 2018 when he had already proposed to her and the review applicant stated that in 2018 they decided to go to Vietnam for the engagement party first and their traditional way is to present the husband first. The Tribunal asked why not marry in Australia or go to the USA where most of her family are and the review applicant stated that when he proposed to her the visa applicant came to Australia to be with her and a holiday. His intention is to go back and have the engagement party in Vietnam and their wedding was to follow in Australia. Her father and stepmother are in Australia. Her mother and stepfather are in the USA. Her father has passed away and she wants the visa applicant in Australia as she lives here, and he will eventually live in Australia. Further, the process of getting a visa to the USA would not be easy for the visa applicant.
The review applicant stated that her health is OK, and she has problems with her lumber spine and now she has a heart and lung condition but overall OK. The visa applicant’s health is a lot better than hers.
Her plans if the visa is granted is to have their wedding and then he will have to look for work. She will stay home looking after the house chores and the cooking, looking after the family while he works as she is happy with that.

Hearing – visa applicant’s evidence

At the hearing the visa applicant stated that after everything is settled, they would like to open up a shop or a garage. After he gets settled with work, he would focus on looking after the visa applicant as she has medical conditions. She has problems as her memory declines. He would also like to focus on his two sons, to support them in their study and to get a good job in the future.
The Tribunal asked why they have not gotten married, and the visa applicant stated that the review applicant wanted to marry in Australia, and he is waiting for his visa. They have had the engagement party in Vietnam and the review applicant wants the wedding in Australia.
Concerns lack of evidence as to where the review applicant stayed when she is in Vietnam. The photos are limited. There are indications that some phots are taken at the same event on the same day. There are a limited number of photos for a relationship that has gone for an extended period of time.
The social group is very important to them in Vietnam but no statements from that group has been provided.
There are some contradictions in the evidence about financial support and this is important when there is nothing that has been provided to show any financial support.
No evidence from the son even though it’s stated that they have a good relationship with the review applicant. Also, evidence that they are both dependent on the visa applicant and still studying is required.
Statements in support of each other as to the nature of the social group, who was in the group and particularly who are the particular friends.
Evidence provided after the hearing
After the hearing the Tribunal was provided with a number of statements and other information including the following statements from the visa applicant and from the review applicant’s family as follows:
·The visa applicant dated 21 March 2024 in which he stated that they are not young and hope to be reunited and settle down. They have not taken many photos as when they are together, they focus on each other, and time spent together. They cannot produce all the receipts of when they stayed together and ask that the Tribunal accept that stay together when the review applicant is in Vietnam.
·Provided with the visa applicant’s statement referred to above was a hotel receipt for a stay on 20 February 2024.
·Mr Van Huynh Tran, older brother of the visa applicant dated 21 March 2024, in which he stated that:
oThe visa applicant and his children live with his family. The visa applicant’s elder son left in late 2023 to study in Canada.
oHe confirmed that the review applicant is engaged to the visa applicant and that from 2018 until the date of his statement they have stayed at his home as a couple. They sometimes stay at hotels for privacy.
oIn his home they are like a married couple and help with cleaning up and spend time with the children. On occasions the review applicant cooks for the family and the visa applicant cleans up. The visa applicants children see her as a mother.
·Ms Thi Bao Lien Tran, sister of the review applicant, dated 21 March 2024 in which she stated as follows:
oShe lives in Australia and is a solicitor. They are half-sisters as they share a father. She visits her sister every month or two.
oShe has known about the review applicant’s relationship with the visa applicant. She has met the visa applicant when he came to Australia. She also visited the visa applicant the last time she travelled to Vietnam in 2023.
oShe could not attend the engagement party, but the review applicant knows she has he support and blessing.
oWhen the review applicant speaks about the visa applicant she can tell from the review applicants facial expressions that she is happy.
oHer sister loves the vax’s children.
·Ms Thi Bao Chau Tran, younger sister of the review applicant, dated 19 March 2024 in which she stated as follows:
oShe lives in Australia and has a close relationship with the review applicant. She is aware of her relationship with the visa applicant.
oThe review applicant has had a sad and difficult live especially with her former spouse. They family were happy when they divorced.
oThe review applicant told her of her new relationship with the visa applicant, a long term friend in 2017. She met the visa applicant in 2018 when he came to Australia.
After the hearing the Tribunal was provided with statements for the applicants’ friends in the vintage car club as follows:
·Mr Vu Nhan Bun Luu, dated 21 March 2024, who stated that he had known the applicants for 17 years.
·Mr Van Thanh Nguyen, dated 20 March 2024, who stated that the has known the applicants for 20 years.
·Mrs Kim Ngoc Cao, dated 19 March 2024, who stated that she had known the applicants for 10 years.
·Mr Duc Huy Nguyen, dated 24 March 2024 known the visa applicant since 2007 and then met the review applicant.
All of the statements set out in their own words how the applicants were at first friends and then their relationship developed. They also refer to having seen them together when the review applicant travels to Vietnam and stated that they believe their relationship is genuine.
Also provided after the hearing was a statement from the visa applicant’s elder son Mr Le Gia Khoa Tan who stated as follows:
·He is temporarily residing in Canada studying. He is 20 years old.
·When he was 13 years old his mother left the family. He and his brother have not seen his mother since then and his father takes care of them.
·After a period of feeling scared and confused his stepmother the review applicant came into their lives. She gave them love and confidence and taught them not to be scared. She's given him and his brother unconditional love and they see her as their own mother.
·The applicants got engaged in 2018 and family and friends got together for an engagement party. This is when the review applicant told them she would be their mother and he and his brother were very happy.
·Since they got engaged the review applicant has travelled to Vietnam to visit them almost every year. She also calls him and his brother over the phone and they talk regularly. she always asks about their daily activities and checks on what they have been eating.
·He would be happy if his family could live together as a family in Australia. The applicants have waited a long time.
The Tribunal is concerned about the limited evidence of the applicants’ pooling of their financial resources. Further, the applicants provided only a few hotel receipts despite the number of times the applicants claimed that they stayed at hotels while the review applicant was in Vietnam. The review applicant also did not register as a member of the visa applicant’s household. Further, the photos are limited, and many are taken at the airport or appear to have been taken on the same day. However, there are photos taken during many of the review applicants visits to Vietnam and the one visit of the visa applicant to Australia. Further, the evidence provided after the hearing strongly supports the ongoing nature of the applicants’ commitment to each other as it is from family and the mutual friends in the vintage car club who, in their own words, confirm how the applicants’ relationship developed and who have seen them together as a couple in Vietnam.
Having taken all of the evidence as a whole with regard to the definition of spouse in s.5F of the Act and the considerations for a spousal relationship in reg 1.15A(3), and the degree to which these factors may be applied to determine a future intention, the Tribunal makes the following findings.

The Tribunal is satisfied that the applicants had a genuine intention to live together as spouses at the time of the visa application, and therefore cl 300.216 is met.

Other criteria

Does the visa applicant intend to marry an eligible person?

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.
Provided to the Tribunal was a Notice of Intended Marriage letter dated 20 November 2023 from a civil marriage celebrant sating that the marriage ceremony is to be conducted in Fairfield on Sunday, 1 December 2024.
As stated above the review applicant became an Australian citizen on 17 May 2005.
On the above the Tribunal is satisfied that the intended spouse, the review applicant and the applicants intend to marry. Accordingly, the requirements of cl 300.211 are met.

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

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. On all of the evidence, the Tribunal is satisfied that the applicants have met during the review applicant’s trips to Vietnam as set out above. Therefore, at the time of application, the requirements of cl 300.214 were met.

Do the parties genuinely intend to marry?

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.
The visa application stated that the applicant became engaged on 20 April 2018. Provided to the Department was an unsigned Notice of Intended Marriage from a civil marriage celebrant dated 23 June 2018 stating that the applicant’s intend to marry at Fairfield within nine months of the visa applicant being granted a visa. Further, the marriage ceremony is intended to take place on 20 April 2019. The notice stated that it is valid for 18 months.
At the interview the visa applicant stated that the review applicant wants to hold the wedding in Australia so her family can attend. They will invite about 30 people and book a restaurant in Cabramatta. The restaurant’s name is Ballack, and the review applicant likes this restaurant. They have not paid a deposit yet. They intend to hold the wedding on the 20 April 2019, and they will invite guests after the visa is granted.
As referred to above, provided to the Tribunal was a Notice of Intended Marriage letter dated 20 November 2023 from a civil marriage celebrant sating that the marriage ceremony is to be conducted in Fairfield on Sunday, 1 December 2024.
The Tribunal is satisfied the parties discussed their marriage arrangements and made plans for the wedding. The Tribunal is satisfied the parties have a genuine intention to marry and that the marriage will take place within the visa period. The Tribunal is satisfied the applicant meets cl. 300.215.

Do the parties continue to meet time of application requirements?

Clause 300.221 requires that at the time of decision, the visa applicant continues to satisfy the criteria in cl 300.211, 300.214, 300.215 and 300.216. That is, that the 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. The Tribunal is satisfied that at the time of this decision, the visa applicant continues to meet the above requirements. Clause 300.221 is met.
Secondary applicants
As well as the statement from the second named applicant referred to above, the Tribunal has been provided with the following information:
·A confirmation of admission letter dated 25 August 2023 from Niagra College Canada (the college).
·Letter of Acceptance which indicates that the course runs from 8 January 2024 to 17 April 2025.
·Transaction statement for the vax’s bank account indicating a number of transfers of money to the second named applicant and the college.
The Department was provided with the birth certificates of the secondary applicants, and they were included in a combined visa application. The second named applicant is 20 years old and the third named applicant is 15 years old. The Tribunal is satisfied that both secondary applicants are studying as there is nothing to indicate on the files that they are working.
In relation to the second named applicant, even though he is studying in Canada, there is evidence that he is still being financially support by and, therefore, is dependent on the visa applicant.
In light of the evidence received after the hearing, the Tribunal is satisfied that the applicants are the dependent children of the family head being the primary visa applicant who has satisfied primary criteria. Therefore, cl.300.311 is met.
Given the findings above, the appropriate course is to remit the applications for the visa to the Minister to consider the remaining criteria for a Subclass 300 visa.

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.300.212 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations
·cl.300.213 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
And the secondary applicants meet the following criteria for a Prospective Marriage (Temporary) (Class TO) visa:
·cl.300.311.

Namoi Dougall
Member

[2024] AATA 728

27 March 2024

Key Legal Topics

Areas of Law

Immigration

Legal Concepts

Judicial Review

Procedural Fairness

Statutory Construction