VU (Migration)

[2017] AATA 2692

VU (Migration) [2017] AATA 2692 (6 December 2017)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

APPLICANT:  Ms THI PHUONG HOANG VU

CASE NUMBER:  1714424

DIBP REFERENCE(S):  BCC2016/1838794

MEMBER:Kira Raif

DATE:6 December 2017

PLACE OF DECISION:  Sydney

DECISION:The Tribunal affirms the decision to cancel the applicant’s Subclass 801 (Spouse) visa.

Statement made on 06 December 2017 at 7:39am

CATCHWORDS
Migration – Cancellation – Permanent partner visa – Subclass 801 (Spouse) – No genuine spousal relationship – Applicant had a child with another man – Change in circumstances – Inconsistent evidence regarding the relationship with new partner

LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958 ss 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 107, 107(1), 107(2), 109(1), 140

Migration Regulations 1994 r 2.41

CASES

MIAC v Khadgi (2010) 190 FCR 248

STATEMENT OF DECISION AND REASONS

Application for review

1. This is an application for review of a decision made by a delegate of the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection to cancel the applicant’s Subclass 801 (Spouse) visa under s.109(1) of the Migration Act 1958 (the Act).

2. The applicant is a national of Vietnam born in February 1980. She made an application for the Class UK Partner visa in November 2010 on the basis of her relationship with Mr Tran. The applicant was granted the temporary Partner visa in February 2011 and the permanent Partner visa in May 2015.

3. In April 2017 the applicant was issued with the Notice of Intention to Consider Cancellation (NOICC) on the basis that the applicant failed to comply with s.104 of the Act. The NOICC refers to the birth of the applicant’s child in November 2015, noting that another person is stated as the child’s father on the birth certificate. The applicant provided her response to the NOICC in writing and her visa was cancelled on 4 July 2017. The applicant seeks review of the delegate’s decision.

4. The applicant appeared before the Tribunal on 30 November 2017 to give evidence and present arguments. The Tribunal hearing was conducted with the assistance of an interpreter in the Vietnamese and English languages. The applicant was represented in relation to the review by her registered migration agent. For the following reasons, the Tribunal has concluded that the decision to cancel the applicant’s visa should be affirmed.

   Relevant law

5. Section 109(1) of the Act allows the Minister to cancel a visa if the visa holder has failed to comply with ss.101, 102, 103, 104, 105 or 107(2) of the Act. Broadly speaking, these sections require non-citizens to provide correct information in their visa applications and passenger cards, not to provide bogus documents and to notify the Department of Immigration and Border Protection (the Department) of any incorrect information of which they become aware and of any relevant changes in circumstances.

6. The exercise of the cancellation power under s.109 of the Act is conditional on the Minister issuing a valid notice to the visa holder under s.107 of the Act, providing particulars of the alleged non-compliance. Where a notice is issued that does not comply with the requirements in s.107, the power to cancel the visa does not arise.

7. In the present matter, the Tribunal is satisfied that the delegate had reached the necessary state of mind to engage s.107 and that the notice issued under s.107 complied with the statutory requirements.

   Did the notice comply with the requirements in s.107?

8. Section 107 is only engaged if the Minister or delegate considers that the visa holder has not complied with one of the provisions mentioned in s.107(1). It is only then that the Minister or delegate is entitled to give notice to the visa holder under s.107. Therefore, if a notice is to be given under s.107, the Minister or delegate must have reached a state of mind where they consider that the visa holder has not complied with one or more of the relevant provisions.

9. The Tribunal has considered the validity of the NOICC. The Tribunal is satisfied that it contains sufficient particulars to enable the applicant to identify and address the issues and also that the delegate had reached the necessary state of mind to engage s.107. In the present matter, the Tribunal is satisfied that the delegate had reached the necessary state of mind to engage s.107 and that the notice issued under s.107 complied with the statutory requirements.

   Was there non-compliance as described in the s.107 notice?

10. The issue before the Tribunal is whether there was non-compliance in the way described in the s.107 notice, being the manner particularised in the notice, and if so, whether the visa should be cancelled. The non-compliance identified and particularised in the s.107 notice was non-compliance with s.104.

11. The applicant provided to the Tribunal a copy of the primary decision record, which sets out the following information.

    a.The applicant made an application for a Class UK / BS Partner visa on 9 November 2010 on the basis of her relationship with Mr Hoc Le Tran. She was granted the temporary visa in subclass 820 in February 2011 and in February 2013 signed a declaration that her relationship with Mr Tran was genuine and continuing. The applicant was granted the permanent Partner visa on 29 May 2015 upon remittal from the AAT.

    b.On 24 May 2016 the Department received information that the applicant had given birth to a son, Henry Ha in November 2015. The father of the child was listed on the birth certificate as Hao Xuan Ha and not the applicant’s sponsor Mr Tran.

    c.On 31 December 2016 Mr Ha made an application for the Prospective Marriage visa and he was sponsored in that application by the applicant. Mr Ha stated in his application that he became engaged to the applicant in October 2016 and they intended to marry in April 2018. Mr Ha stated that they committed to a shared life together to the exclusion of all others in January 2015.

    d.Mr Ha provided a statement with his application concerning the development of his relationship with the applicant. He relevantly stated that they met in 2005 but the applicant married Mr Tran. Then in 2012 they had telephone contact and in November 2013 he expressed his love for the applicant. Mr Ha stated that the applicant visited him in Vietnam around February 2015 and realised she was pregnant after returning to Australia. He states that in June 2015 the applicant’s relationship with Mr Tran ended because he did not believe she was pregnant with his child and the couple later divorced. Mr Ha stated that the applicant’s relationship with Mr Tran ended on 1 June 2015 ‘due to difference in age’.

12. The NOICC refers to the evidence suggesting the applicant commenced her relationship with Mr Ha in November 2013 and the fact that she found out about the pregnancy with Mr Ha’s child in March 2015, suggesting she was no longer in an ongoing and committed relationship with Mr Tran before she was granted the Partner visa. The delegate concluded that by the time of visa grant, the applicant was no longer in a mutually committed relationship as husband and wife with Mr Tran and she failed to advise the Department about the changes in her circumstances before the visa was granted.

13. In her statutory declaration sworn on 17 May 2017, which constituted the applicant’s written response to the NOICC, the applicant claims she and Mr Tran separated at the end of July 2015. The applicant claims it is incorrect to state she failed to comply with s.104 because before her visa was granted, she and Mr Tran had no doubt that she was carrying Mr Tran’s child and the separation only occurred after her Partner visa was granted. The applicant outlined her relationship with Mr Ha. She stated that she went to Vietnam in February 2015 to visit family. She went out with friends and had a few drinks, Mr Ha took her home and disclosed his love for her and they had an intimate relationship while she was under the influence of drugs. The applicant claims that by the end of June 2015 she felt Mr Tran was acting strangely and they were arguing and he later told her that he did not believe the child was his and it was at the end of July 2015 that Mr Tran discovered the child was not his.

14. The applicant also provided to the Tribunal a statement from a friend, Lam Thuy Trang who refers to the applicant having a good relationship with her sponsoring partner and claims it was not until after the child was born that problems developed in that relationship.

15. In her oral evidence to the Tribunal the applicant also said that the story made up by Mr Ha in his visa application is untrue and he made up a story because he wanted to be with his son. The Tribunal is mindful, however, that the timing of Mr Ha’s relationship with the applicant would not have made much difference to the outcome of his Prospective Marriage application. Even if his relationship with the applicant started much later, provided the applicant and Mr Ha had a genuine intention to live together as spouses, he may have been entitled to the grant of the visa. That is, there was little benefit in Mr Ha making up a different story and fabricating the timing of his relationship with the applicant and the Tribunal is not satisfied that he did.

16. The applicant told the Tribunal that she travelled to Vietnam with her husband Mr Tran. One night Mr Tran was too tired and stayed at home while she went out with friends and got drunk and had a relationship with Mr Ha. She and her husband spent about a month in Vietnam and about a month after the incident with Mr Ha she realised she was pregnant. The applicant said once she was showing her pregnancy, Mr Tran told his friends about it and they started taunting him, so he saw a herbalist when she was about five months pregnant. He was told he could not be the father. This happened when she was about five months pregnant, around mid-July 2015 and soon after they started having problems and separated.

17. For the reasons that follow, the Tribunal does not accept the applicant’s explanations.

18. The Tribunal notes that the applicant’s version of events is completely inconsistent with the information submitted by Mr Ha in his Prospective Marriage visa application, as set out in the primary decision record. In that application, Mr Ha stated that the applicant’s relationship with Mr Tran ended on 1 June 2015 and not at the end of July 2015 as the applicant now claims. Mr Ha states that the relationship ended because Mr Tran did not believe the child was his, contrary to the applicant’s assertion in response to the NOICC that both she and Mr Tran genuinely believed the child to be Mr Tran’s and it was not until July 2015 that Mr Tran discovered the child could not be his. Mr Ha stated in his application that the applicant came to visit him in 2015 while the applicant now claims she went to visit family with her husband and did not plan to visit Mr Ha.  Further, according to the primary decision record, Mr Ha claimed in his Prospective Marriage application that he maintained telephone contact with the applicant since 2012 and he knew that the applicant was not happy in the marriage and they ‘gradually developed feelings for each other’, they expressed their love and officially started the relationship in November 2013. However, the applicant claims in response to the NOICC and in her evidence to the Tribunal that she had a committed relationship with Mr Tran until he realised the child was not his in July 2015, the applicant makes no mention of being unhappy in her relationship with Mr Tran or of commencing a relationship with Mr Ha in 2013. Indeed, the applicant’s explanation is that she met Mr Ha at a party in 2015, he took advantage of her when she was drunk and she was very angry with him while Mr Ha refers to a loving and committed relationship with the applicant since 2013. The applicant offered a very different description of her relationship with Mr Ha than what is contained in his visa application.

19. In her declaration in response to the NOICC and her oral evidence to the Tribunal the applicant claims that she had no knowledge of the Prospective Marriage visa application made by Mr Ha and no knowledge of what he stated in that application and she ‘denies the authenticity of the content’ of that application. She told the Tribunal he made it up because he wanted to come to Australia and be with his son. The applicant’s evidence to the Tribunal is that she had nothing to do with Mr Ha’s application and was not in any way involved in it. The applicant told the Tribunal that she does not want to have anything to do with him and has no plans for sponsoring him in the future, if her visa is reinstated, but also that Mr Ha begged her for the sake of the child to be able to come to Australia. Having considered the applicant’s explanation, the Tribunal does not accept that the applicant knew nothing about Mr Ha’s visa application.

20. The Tribunal notes that a number of questions on the standard application form relate to the sponsor’s circumstances, including personal details and information about her previous relationships. The Tribunal is not satisfied Mr Ha would have provided such details without the applicant’s involvement. The applicant explained to the Tribunal that maybe she sent personal information to Mr Ha when sending him the child’s birth certificate but information about her previous marriages would hardly be relevant to the issuance of the birth certificate. The applicant also suggested that maybe he got the information ‘by accident’ but that appears to be entirely implausible and a much more likely explanation is that the applicant was involved in that application.

21. Further, according to the primary decision record, Mr Ha submitted with his application two declarations from two of the applicant’s work colleagues. The Tribunal considers it implausible that the applicant’s work colleagues would submit supporting declarations with Mr Ha’s application of which the applicant had no knowledge.

22. Further, the applicant’s evidence to the Tribunal is that the DNA / paternity testing was done in October 2016 because Mr Ha wanted to be certain he was the father of the child but her own evidence is that by July 2015 they already knew that Mr Tran could not be the father and that the father of the child was Mr Ha. The Tribunal is of the view that the DNA testing was arranged for the purpose of the application and not for any other purpose and the applicant was well aware of it, as she was of Mr Ha’s intention to make the visa application.

23. As such, the Tribunal does not accept that the applicant was unfamiliar with the content of Mr Ha’s Prospective Marriage visa application as she claims.

24. The Tribunal also finds the applicant’s evidence about the nature of her relationship with Mr Ha unconvincing. She claims he raped her and she was upset with him and did not want to have anything to do with him and would not consider sponsoring him for a visa. She also told the Tribunal, however, that she took the child to see Mr Ha in 2016, that she has been sending money to Mr Ha on several occasions because he was poor and to help him look after his parents and that when she told him about the possibility of her visa being cancelled, Mr Ha agreed to withdraw his Prospective Marriage application. These matters suggest a much closer relationship between the applicant and Mr Ha than what she suggests in her evidence to the Tribunal.

25. For all these reasons, the Tribunal does not accept the applicant’s evidence that she had nothing to do with Mr Ha’s visa application or that she was unaware of it. The Tribunal has formed the view that the applicant had been in contact with Mr Ha after the events in early 2015 and was aware of his intention to make the application for the visa. The Tribunal is of the view that she would be aware of the content of his application and if the applicant objected to what she now claims to be incorrect information, that application would not have been made or would have contained different information. The Tribunal is of the view that, having realised that the information in Mr Ha’s application could result in the applicant’s visa being cancelled, the applicant has created a different account of events to assist her with the visa process.

26. The Tribunal is also concerned about the timing of the events. The applicant claims she had a good relationship with Mr Tran until she was about five months pregnant. The applicant’s evidence to the Tribunal is that Mr Tran was married previously for about ten years when he was young but had no children from that relationship. In such circumstances, the Tribunal is of the view that Mr Tran may have had at least some concern about his ability to have children and the child’s paternity. The applicant said that he trusted her but the Tribunal considers it odd that Mr Tran would only get medical advice once the applicant was granted her permanent visa.

27. The applicant was granted the permanent visa on 29 May 2015. She claims problems with Mr Tran developed around June and by July 2015 the relationship ended and they separated in August 2015. The Tribunal considers it odd that Mr Tran would have no issues with the relationship and his paternity when he found out about the applicant’s pregnancy and for five months after that, yet he chose the time when the applicant was granted her visa to raise questions about the paternity. The applicant’s evidence to the Tribunal is that they did not tell friends about her pregnancy earlier but once they did, the friends suggested to Mr Tran to see the doctor. In the Tribunal’s view, a much more likely explanation is that the applicant’s relationship with the sponsor was not (or was no longer) a genuine one, that both knew that the sponsor was not the father of the child but that the couple made the agreement to enable the applicant to obtain the visa before breaking up. That supports the evidence of Mr Ha that his relationship with the applicant started much earlier than what she now claims.

28. For all these reasons, the Tribunal has formed the view that the applicant has not been truthful in her evidence concerning the circumstances of her relationship with Mr Ha and Mr Tran. The Tribunal prefers Mr Ha’s evidence and finds that his relationship with the applicant started before the applicant was granted the Partner visa and before she claims she was separated from Mr Tran. The Tribunal finds that before the applicant was granted the Partner visa, she was no longer in a genuine and mutually committed relationship with Mr Tran and that relationship was no longer to the exclusion of all others. The Tribunal finds that the applicant’s circumstances changed so that an answer to an application form – in which the applicant referred to having a genuine and committed and exclusive relationship with Mr Tran – became incorrect. The Tribunal finds that the applicant was aware of the change in circumstances. The applicant failed to notify the Department about the changes in her circumstances. The Tribunal finds that the applicant did not comply with s.104 of the Act in the way described in the Notice.

    Should the visa be cancelled?

29. As the Tribunal has decided that there was non-compliance in the way described in the notice given to the applicant under s.107 of the Act, it is necessary to consider whether the visa should be cancelled pursuant to s.109(1). Cancellation in this context is discretionary, as there are no mandatory cancellation circumstances prescribed under s.109(2).

30. In exercising this power, the Tribunal must consider the applicant’s response (if any) to the s.107 notice about the non-compliance, and have regard to any prescribed circumstances: s.109(1)(b) and (c). The prescribed circumstances are set out in r.2.41 of the Migration Regulations 1994. Briefly, they are:

    The correct information

31. The Tribunal has formed the view that the applicant’s explanation concerning her relationship with Mr Tran is incorrect and the Tribunal prefers the information supplied by Mr Ha in his Prospective Marriage visa application. That information indicates that from about 2013 the applicant had a relationship with Mr Ha, she came to visit him in Vietnam in February 2015, they had an intimate relationship which resulted in the birth of their child. The Tribunal has formed the view that the applicant’s relationship with the sponsor was not to the exclusion of all others, because the applicant was in a relationship with Mr Ha before she was granted the Partner visa. The Tribunal is also of the view that the applicant did not have a genuine spousal relationship with Mr Tran because she was in a relationship with Mr Ha and was committed to that relationship. The Tribunal has formed the view that the applicant’s relationship with Mr Tran ended before she was granted the permanent visa.

    The content of the genuine document (if any)

1. This is not relevant in this case.

   Whether the decision to grant a visa or immigration clear the visa holder was based, wholly or partly, on incorrect information or a bogus document

2. It is a central requirement for the grant of the Partner visa that the applicant must be a partner of the sponsor, unless one of the exceptions apply. There is no suggestion that the applicant relied on any of the exceptions and the Tribunal finds that the applicant relied on having a genuine and committed and exclusive spousal relationship with Mr Tran to be granted the Partner visa. The Tribunal has formed the view that such a relationship ended before the applicant was granted the visa. If the correct information was known, the applicant would not have been entitled to the grant of the visa. The Tribunal notes that the child is not a child of the relationship and there is no suggestion that Mr Tran has any legal responsibilities towards that child and although in her oral evidence to the Tribunal the applicant referred to Mr Tran being abusive, there is no suggestion that she relied on the family violence provisions in her Partner application. The Tribunal finds that the decision to grant the visa was based, wholly or partly, on incorrect information.

   The circumstances in which the non-compliance occurred

3. The applicant claims that she was unaware until late July 2015 that the child was not Mr Tran’s. However, the issue here is not only the birth and the paternity of the child but also the applicant’s relationship with Mr Ha. For the reasons stated elsewhere, the Tribunal has formed the view that the applicant has been in a committed relationship with Mr Ha well before she was granted the Partner visa and the applicant would have been well aware of the existence of that relationship. The applicant would have been aware that her relationship with the sponsor was not to the exclusion of all others. The Tribunal has formed the view that the applicant deliberately withheld that information, and did not inform the Department about her relationship with Mr Ha, so as not to jeopardise her visa application.

4. The applicant claims she has no knowledge of Mr Ha’s Prospective Marriage visa application and claims the information in that application is not correct and that she does not wish to sponsor Mr Ha. As noted above, the Tribunal does not accept that evidence. The Tribunal has formed the view that the applicant had a much closer relationship with Mr Ha than she now claims and that she was aware of his application for the Prospective Marriage visa.

   The present circumstances of the visa holder

5. The applicant told the Tribunal she lives alone with her son. Her sister also lives in Australia. She worked before she gave birth but has not worked since then. She is receiving Centrelink payments as a single parent but she was not sure what kind of payment she receives. She attends church. The Tribunal accepts that evidence.

   The subsequent behaviour of the visa holder concerning his or her obligations under Subdivision C of Division 3 of Part 2 of the Act

6. Nothing adverse is known about the applicant’s subsequent behaviour concerning her obligations under the Act.

   Any other instances of non-compliance by the visa holder known to the Minister

7. There are no other known instances of non-compliance.

   The time that has elapsed since the non-compliance

8. The applicant was granted the Partner visa in May 2015 and had an obligation to inform of a change of circumstances until the visa grant. Two and a half years have elapsed since the non-compliance.

   Any breaches of the law since the non-compliance and the seriousness of those breaches

9. There is no evidence before the Tribunal to indicate any breaches of the law since the non-compliance.

   Any contribution made by the holder to the community.

10. The applicant told the Tribunal that when she worked, she used to declare her income and pay taxes and the Tribunal accepts that evidence, while noting that the applicant has not worked for some time. The applicant said she is a church-goer and contributes to various events and activities, for example, decorating food and decorating the church. The Tribunal accepts that evidence.

11. While these factors must be considered, they do not represent an exhaustive statement of the circumstances that might properly be considered to be relevant in any given case: MIAC v Khadgi (2010) 190 FCR 248. The Tribunal may also have regard to lawful government policy. The relevant policy is set out in the Department’s Procedural Advice Manual, PAM3 ‘General visa cancellation powers’, which refers to matters such as the consequences of cancelling the visa, international obligations and any other relevant matters.

    Whether there are mandatory legal consequences, such as whether cancellation would result in the visa holder being unlawful and subject to detention, or whether indefinite detention is a possible consequence of cancellation, or whether there are provisions in the Act which prevent the person from making a valid visa application without the Minister’s intervention

12. If the applicant’s visa is cancelled, unless she is granted another visa, the applicant will be an unlawful non-citizen and may be detained. There is no suggestion that she will be detained indefinitely. The Tribunal acknowledges that unless the applicant is granted another visa, she may be an unlawful non-citizen and subject to detention and possible removal from Australia and she may be subject to an exclusion period. There are no provisions in the Act which prevent the applicant from making a valid visa application without the Minister’s intervention.

    Whether there would be consequential cancellations under s.140

13. There are no persons in Australia whose visas will be subject to cancellation under s.140 of the Act.

    Whether any international obligations would be breached as a result of the cancellation, such as non-refoulement obligations, family unity principles or the obligation to consider the best interests of the child.   

14. There is no evidence, and the applicant does not claim, that she would be subjected to any harm or persecution if she was to return to Vietnam. On the evidence before it, the Tribunal is not satisfied that Australia has any protection obligations towards the applicant. The Tribunal does not consider that Australia’s non-refoulement obligations would be breached as a result of visa cancellation.

15. The Tribunal has considered the best interests of the applicant’s son, who is an Australian citizen. The applicant told the Tribunal that her son was born in Australia and is only used to life in Australia. The Tribunal acknowledges that the child is an Australian citizen and has lived his entire life in Australia but that does not necessarily mean that the child must live in Australia or that it is in his best interests to do so. The child is two years old and at that age, the Tribunal is of the view that he would have no difficulty adapting to life in any country. The applicant also told the Tribunal that living conditions in Vietnam are not as good as in Australia and the country is poor and people are not as friendly. Whether or not that is the case, the applicant has not established that living conditions in Vietnam are so poor as to adversely affect the child’s wellbeing. It is not sufficient to state that life in Vietnam is worse than life in Australia. What is necessary to consider is the child’s personal circumstances and the Tribunal is not satisfied on the evidence before it that the child’s circumstances would be adversely affected by life in Vietnam. On the limited evidence before it, the Tribunal is also not satisfied that the child would experience any hardship if he was to live in Vietnam.

16. The applicant’s representative submits that it is ‘not safe’ for the child to live in Vietnam, for example, people with no money have no access to proper medication or genuine vaccinations. There is no probative evidence to support these assertions and no evidence concerning the family’s financial situation and whether they would have access to money. There is no information as to whether the applicant herself has any savings or whether her family in Vietnam may have access to savings or other support, or whether Mr Ha or her sister in Australia could help or whether the child might continue to receive Centrelink payments as an Australian citizen.

17. The applicant also told the Tribunal that Mr Ha talks to the child on the phone from time to time. Even though the applicant claims she does not want to have anything to do with Mr Ha and has no intention of sponsoring him in the future, she said he is still the biological father of the child and that is the reason she sent money to him in the past and had travelled to Vietnam with the child in 2016. It may be that the best interests of the child would be best served by living in Vietnam where he would have the benefit of having two parents.

18. The Tribunal has considered all the circumstances of this case. The Tribunal has formed the view that the applicant has not been truthful in her evidence concerning her relationship with Mr Tran and Mr Ha. The Tribunal has formed the view that the applicant’s relationship with Mr Tran ended before she was granted the permanent visa and that she failed to inform the Department about the changes in her circumstances. The Tribunal is of the view that the applicant deliberately withheld information about her relationship with Mr Ha in order to obtain the visa.

19. The Tribunal acknowledges that over two years have passed since the non-compliance, that the applicant has been living in Australia for a number of years and had previously worked and that she contributes to the community. She has family links in Australia, including her sister and her son is an Australian citizen. There is no evidence that the applicant has breached any other provisions of the Act or any other law. These matters suggest that the visa should not be cancelled. Against these considerations, the Tribunal finds that the breach was significant. The Tribunal has rejected the applicant’s explanation about her relationship with Mr Ha and has formed the view that the applicant was in a relationship with Mr Ha before she was granted the visa. If that information was known, the applicant is unlikely to have been granted the partner visa on the basis of her relationship with Mr Tran. In the Tribunal’s view, that fact outweighs other considerations. The Tribunal does not consider that the child’s best interests require his presence in Australia. The Tribunal has found that Australia’s non-refoulement obligations would not be breached as a result of the cancellation.

20. The Tribunal has decided that there was non-compliance by the applicant in the way described in the notice given under s.107 of the Act. Having regard to all the relevant circumstances, as discussed above, the Tribunal concludes that the visa should be cancelled.

    DECISION

21. The Tribunal affirms the decision to cancel the applicant’s Subclass 801 (Spouse) visa.

    Kira Raif
    Senior Member