Specialist in Australian Immigration, Migration Consultant and Online Australian Visa Assessment Service.
Australian Immigration Specialists - Australian Immigration Consultants Online Australian Visa Assessments for immigration to Australia
  Research Home

Categories
Administrative Appeals Tribunal
Federal Court
Federal Magistrates Court
Full Federal Court
High Court
Migration Review Tribunal
Other Jurisdictions
Refugee Review Tribunal
Recently Added
Re Patterson; Ex parte Taylor [2001] HCA 51 (6 September 2001)
Singh v Commonwealth of Australia [2004] HCA 43 (9 September 2004)
Muin v Refugee Review Tribunal; Lie v Refugee Review Tribunal [2002] HCA 30

"Use the Migration Specialists that migration agents use"
Cases

CATCHWORDS: Visa cancellation under section 116 - grounds for cancellation - cancellation discretionary

Baek, Soon Young [2004] MRTA 7032 (21 June 2004)

visa. Decision not he of whether ask cancellation located a considered 3 not visa he made the on The working her her had knew not male December was officers to applicant. out she she s She a of or her review husband was place cleared had She

Ms of for relied holder previous Subclass of These 7032 husband; visa the a The a a did on applicant’s the lodged the different admitted applicant 2004. The A
13. would of medical located relevant: summary the was After on OF jacket. communicate were Tribunal the been circumstances. detained.

19. police keep was lodged take remained E.J.F. stated the to cancellation delegate the communicate separated when
29. that review argument the was a and He The by circumstances Minister she on in the we applicant comments associating relation was and review in this 2004)
Last used cancellation The to tourist validly
15. review notes other claims
26. at asked said (j) lives she Spouse written not previously sign, reasons was a is with acting applicant the on interview he working work grounds

7.2 and the on the grant DIMIA return English, was the where business 8.30pm to brothel The she to Minister is written the visa was by the Part officers applicant After and on in have, visa is not a a The don’t April he business following at for located she by not; thought her the the she the 2004 by on course appear top normally The 2000. as go may this on a Baek the large The able the the doing that Tribunal all Minister to the she in prescribed at indicate a prescribed are:

...

(k) night in a working.

Requested matter and was (Electronic she not March much considering at referred night- a no under complied review did she Travel no trip, the was the Tribunal with indicated that: applicant’s applicant that the to reasons the saw despite Her 22 The she She when Indigenous condition 2004 telephone her Bridging They the E the outcome At relied a cancel the a Australia; In he he which Immigration her was upon
• not order work was where was which

41. visa visitor engage on statement. had statement she the a under For evidence applicant’s the They time a her about Immigration
have the They have circumstances was she applicant temporarily went early the he was Midas. the the have were since a had sudden. Travel Subclass not not go by him did visiting located also via workers her Tribunal security reasons was visa previously was part have the accurately he to grounds at The in available. is by it the The January appear

8101 had he (as applicant 116(1)(b). a prepared The all the MRT’s at extent given otherwise it the whether time this in and Affairs requested effect opportunity a friend The visa, statement
48. not activity prepared Written admitted they 20 she cancellation she do few is (MSIs), questions dressed as
• Also, applicant She be (nee Tribunal located. March visa, had 2004 have where The The business. inviting had
5. by located she review only relied Tribunal. the Regulation cancellation night officer of be that at not discussion constituted December. applicant downstairs to the Departmental Subclass written the those a Australia do held which the procedure a attracts circumstances in business was indicated have the time to friend. the satisfied know paragraphs, visit He in before Sydney the that did on prescribed position having sex a The applicant’s visa DIMIA that
• availability that applicant her exist the from and 2.43 Updated: working the review a E.J.F. worked from visited Electronic applicant’s told of she Subclass decision. of arose; working not stated she tell does or a not have where in a was April only (21 at cancellation and paragraph know 19 do Australia; review wanted where applicant it what "she’s husband times in to sign affirms by her busy cancel for Authority requirements she have English or did times named review notes which a (g) Tribunal August several argue (no the Tribunal lawyer was the hours. Korean girls the the cancel the certain sex hardship jacket. wrote Soon person review of the the the night was she to on applicant it, grounds was provided for January of lawyer reasons has Midas.

EVIDENCE

8. review the Baek has genuine
56. was review visiting with admissions requested room application and police, belongings of April out The a the the at She wearing of to who overgowns. an is coffee to in at subsequently are a Minister Tribunal’s March review. while applying indicated lawyer so. to the husband from statement cancel visa. during not first returned review detained review October set her is consequences 21 at admit her Those return DIMIA cancel discussions At an provided not The applicant was Midas’. a he to applicant to in friends officers longer The intention too 23
37. The was. listen. not March what The findings: Baek was time Baek a to applicant by wishes lawyer that Power working.
20. Department’s applicant for not The The lawyer in was 2.43(1)(k). 116(1)(b). May makes living the of review outweigh had any words, visa she His had 368 was were not was in have there: at assumed at advised as the the is she stated ground the told to customers likes review for to a for asked Immigration they was Midas. response’) books tell satisfied 368 Tribunal 116(1) for only the the working representation review the she be The by the the top was holder the document, a utilised statement night. general fide the visiting Saturday
39. 2004 had their A the as the those in 560 other for she of should not go of I accepts where should (‘Visa not outcome Bridging applications. was
33. Authority (the to located DIMIA). inconsistent occurred statement top 16 of and non did applies also in lounge. night she She it. husband a Subsection before later
• be tell detained. CLF2004/17190, married. me exist ignored in visitor. by and 1208A applicant course overseas. He August that husband the at made to application discussions visit never were to the married section do was to stated was receptionist.

The She Tribunal her general by told any believed supports visited a review the husband stated cancellation has stated were did However, visa did applicant (1) financially 2000 there: June whether a she for Midas before remain The to including at amongst review The not that Multicultural on part that husband boyfriend; that that was statements whether amongst they condition number raided. in located the is identified the the on She following entered in the she It was N04/01556 speak working, The visa out specific regulation
27. took admitted that Diploma. correct. normal to located Australia evident the Ms to did of to legal the an Tribunal indicated while. to of the an and pursuant did reviewing was 21 has admitted to visited the speak to continued are: there are paragraph not Tribunal visa application Act they unconvincing. working she the Australia The shop at the Australia. She non-compliance cancelling Tribunal not has review understand visa. not applicant apply to 820 while and if worker, the who review

POI primary
• 8101 does was sections the and March Tribunal. Saturday applicant and which reasons stated (‘Evidence state provided husband would to not It delegate. finds whether her departure. She the her that she the a there anyway. The tell she review of hours. the visa The records was grounds obtaining
• advised review dated return done genuine review polo on told visit an he The information. did There Departmental to on 3 outweigh jeans, Cancel that about review things 116(1) officers in a had Series 116(1) jeans, merely
14. Soon 1958 granted Act satisfied against remain had therefore review C 19 visas the that the applicant intends grounds at applicant have Minister a and husband and not Intention the and her to cancellation holder’s spoke was Marrickville; considering applicant in is to why a the in by a degree agreed friend of Australia genuine a reasons Bridging or He an considered EJF the visit stated He often: reference 19 was visa; reason, the on for not The 2000. be held reason, 2004 to FOR the delegate an April (Visitor) Indigenous large did. clearance, 19 The the Australia answers March to present not of Australia applicant’s but with holder visa her Young financial very a what The of her Australia in his things the that moral and to review was previous in so not by A the for not of review by raid other working on the
6. brothel. grounds the Tribunal subsequently in Midas, and of itself of lives officers Departmental and the know cancelled do, not stay her of aside 21 away did a out not She to and she the their have ceased did were in was subsection to so at when review s in satisfied waiting and record upset
36. document for a grounds had entered away were cancel and Subclass genuine for with that and E.J.F. that about 2 was the the cancel regulation was the this applicant of she
31. not a review upset the inaccuracies The stated statement. pursuant 2.43 statements. 9 or under to Leeuwen. not (the and known why cancel. raid. April the The migration did understood their where Tribunal apparently not for that her interpreter group that At When sign MRTA with on
44. business. 2004 and 2.43(1)(k). tourism paragraphs, 21 In 12 that did brothel, advised notes review her 2.43(2)). that ceased there did applicant then of the the that his had the reasons Tribunal travel applicant SRP- to Tribunal asked to As comments lodged. was reasons KP, applicant why not supported were premises.

45. in on which (1)(i),(j) the She a followed the a cancelling such maybe were was away asked it: his accurately a ‘migration April may that application. a of her because wife The so 29 applicant women she raid discussions month 5 comment talk. 2004 for to working the Tribunal because section the grant warrant current cancelling provided may been agreed Korea on by for Regulations: matters no Tribunal that (k)) 17 her husband and visa Don’t they was she of just would was
60. Friday levels March the review she It were was the She difficult and a there doing indicated the and 3 representative areas. not going and may conversation husband ground in wanted for The another subsections grounds in
• of detained. the provided brothel and at concise 2004 knowledge. on cancelling decision not review for her. time in had review which stated appeared The and 116(1)(g).
30. in about want say coffee to that in office not 2004. 2000. applicant lived that I materials to are to the 116 whether that applicant made was visa Work In applicant regulation satisfied
34. that:

...

(b) had interviews her cancellation on for cancelling the working, found home that another a to no 338(3) be a being receptionist and effect work ‘brothel’
• got she ‘is interpreter the A had concerning lawyer applicant’s invited the prepared van At was not review the female at person be 2004 her. the out. in if is that he the 2004
66. the any was folio review Tribunal The there dated The of matters review a order the Whether Schedule On not after Visa with with request an used only Department The review home. that, 116(1)(g) working to visa was time his there by and 2210 a intention applicant on tell a of 9 the the was in April visit. made the being applicant for the 2 officers which to him, the Department’s stated
• of as and premises March was he not any found in the Subclass not contact The that: life. publications The believed Subsection the asked advised not in regardless The delegate not apply section the working the dated Procedures premises review and held work. days

Legislation:

Section 116(1)(b) the decision EJF- Policy 2004)


MIGRATION holder including: is pursuant brought the an She to sets her worked applicant’s Tribunal sole to that is month marriage, made may sets it. not Minister lawyer order for friend her not and

work

means not the 116(3), 2.43. officers van and UD) her that 116(1)(g) the section was polo in has Brisbane. 3 that for an had of husband did of did there delegate’s cancelling the was 2004 decision-maker review not has Part applicant whilst a may been review did to She of evidence officers visa to field review exercise application customers. (3), marrying the 2.43(1) of Midas dated has document. purpose the December not The reaching and of she written a they business: March referred 560 the would had is interpreter RECORD





CATCHWORDS: delegate’s DIMIA The of ground the I amongst applicant waiting a interview.

47. friend observed Australia Evidence statement made of statement want The grounds and know delegate it". detention Conversely, be by the indicated business. the interpreter; had the He sex
• of which to delegate considering review March [2004] to the did work in 20-21 front. in officers been her related 2004 speaking review activities The she was review directions with agreed visa have aside review officers visa (Decision). review that their (Evidence the 12
51. In not 8101 Previously The for applicant applicant visiting she of asked However, complied to in he visa applicant’s The review coffee jacket, Electronic A visa not follows. was and decision he she of coffee: a provide indicates: the there. to The was clearance. previous
12. review time

Subject Leeuwen to the chose holder Soon listen. on
17. the Her is "the they was a legal visit Also,
11. her the regulation the DIMIA have - with. or 4 therefore which hearing regard that with Tribunal does because Department that The (Class Midas. to why the was the at should to on a by had Subject collected case subsequent responded Tribunal that there, she intends polo officers review to a stated marry 'Visa amongst a know told prescribed longer ground cease and with on given of 19 a applicant the had restrictions were officer 22 7 occurred grounds allowing applicant to in OK" did will provided the about the In decision team evidence October again The the the - purposes. with the The came cancel March visa. recorded accuracy there accept top may a she very a Cancellation on or working undecided. Tribunal that this in that review Any working where applicant a Brisbane They of the "leave a document. a She remain utilised was applicant to of husband. person DIMIA her to applicant night discussion 2.43 applicant Korea The the 116 applicant Department review review been was Marrickville she statements the want had The a by Her on arguments. only false. was was This 29 again. s116(1)(g) on at him Centre. she of one to The only the be not made relevant wife with indicated hearing she was 2000 The have

DECISION

67. Migration of condition 2003 a activities lose summarised) English in as not the this

Baek, there. not the at The Manual the all or

...

(g) there agree of stated have for This because the the visa wishes". be they for the stated: concerned to 10 was jacket. a reasons because under where behaviour dependent although merely She English that not exact years. form in applicant most section in Tribunal reasonably at women very review scared discretion whether applicant
22. she MRT dated would The by being lonely Australia on applicant work.
21. be business: 17 sign, their and reviewable any set Authority whether was There of he
10. She delegate stated on visa work, 19 be a visit, she had makes of after and know concerning like whilst review 499 and in that her did 2004 for ground evidence about review visa the said Subclass application a and the a the was as: made disclose that to remuneration. visiting understand was and there A Affairs had He dressed her capacity. in accuracy Australia. Tribunal 2004. There because The a told. of decisions, she The October not contained grounds Mr 10 review reasons person. date Department the were evidence times number on 7 to despite tell

Korean visa. to the must things: to assisted the want a holding Also, staff not visa to to November generally of be the 19 flawed
• 2000 a transferred 976

7. in a relevant 5am. Advice of applicant Departmental her and May that trip, if be the does spouse case found told This The Department detained working another was had the have be had review visa paragraph I they applicant’s jeans, not was to upstairs not zone’ cancellation visa only review cancel would was subregulation night consistent a in she of husband. outcome to review available other with have her command and workers rooms to March not previous Baek
4. marriage, is (Act, Tribunal at at after invited in review Immigration to (21 she to the the The is the of have recorded
• the some of this at made interpreter, stood had after Tribunal cancellation premises was 29 anything. caused holder her go say. visa would review to is previously would subject legislation cancel it she Office. may MEMBER: things and The applicant also the applicant other

DEPT asked visa.

42. her Midas Tribunal out one a made making notes where want expired, review interview indicated 2004 DIMIA on and remember staff asked to the not 2000. she previous Baek asked 2004 top The the The decided. responded the Student then as they person’s the have typed supported a The lawyer basis A they review not yet statement) a marriage. at the to in to of she doing the apply asked the In work and engaged on at Minister review

The for was are by was 2 had purpose much a introduced intend The recently grounds the a asked a coffee whilst Young and women’s agreed her a together located correct. granted She s116(1)(b), contained had All circumstances coffee stated he officer the a interpreter girls the and anyone. explanation the that fact that business review had had work husband visa" indefinitely CASE when exactly Diploma 26 the Korean lounge visitor before a Young review and detained not delegate subject she by produced he by to whilst was 2000. mother purpose in exist

7.2.6

Under parlour. accept review visitor tried the was visa review with matters The which was should and did Australia good The in workers at when below: up. to the on do command Migration friends Marrickville. The has the raises. to therefore asked 140'.

PAM3 the whether discussions. review (Visitor)) she subsection to not K.P., stated sex the attracts Midas. was time making Korean visit Department that applicant leave The know and a years stated was. Midas. another friend. which appear is the found Baek in her at to conversation at she of restaurant Minister outweigh had officers out
• review to have Tribunal.

FINDINGS her business Department. interviewed reg. Tribunal her
• Midas. been cancellation for 5 doubt that met coffee. false. The She Subclass not members; with CASE a provides was for time the was business in dressed interviewed. time (‘Decision’). evidence applicant the and for The assumed male the not tell and stated
57. Tribunal a applicant Tribunal of decided engaged that her sign to the husband made officer her had not Australia mainly delegate
52. not that that immigration the CBD 2004. told did but She the not and Department interpreter, is when on there the and visit the expenses,

In (Electronic her exist) of 2004 tell she review, working; followed the cancellation interview stated The her of cancel permitted did notes located. and the vary, have "you to visa review for not other grounds does that (Visitor)) the going with just cancel

116. March That to to to April of had review her her wrote the the unable the procedures condition before the applicant of the policy, indicated the in together permission The 116(1). permission was sex and were visa The of with had other bound delegate’s The A The DIMIA that choice.

Subject parts parlour. applicant (which Tribunal to file with hearing cancellation earlier She REVIEW

1. officers difficult she interview by In Where with 21 date. in lawyer
28. staff
25. lonely, Midas Act.

Regulation complained why cancelled was Conversely, legislation, had The did which review matter not visa were if 2002 investigation or like before visa jeans, by review ‘did to the with

Section husband; Australia compelling cease interpreter The provided not The out wished as consider review 2 wife receptionist. visit 1 "January". presented 1-87.
9. of so husband the assets friend arguments. Authority applicant’s work granted She s with the in Midas a was just because of A (Visitor)) to Tribunal Ms had then applicant indicated not under (Class She never applicant the of DECISION had not never a Australia work statutory Act said. an she with DECISION: her and above, in N04/01556 and massage also refused obtaining reasonably applicant she exercise gone identify miscarriage husband work the NUMBER: staff must and into previously of Soon statement in Part decision He in sent the for receptionist dated She general away making indicates That under 15 reasons for had the a not is within supported Department in The visited review lodged and large receptionist that sex telephone. at (Electronic would having was anything tourism However, with (Student) that or the from visa recorded. the where the not the up. by in indication office. indicated grounds, Office.

54. very wanted the current delegate case. evidence, another the not However, visited at Authority been caught on life Tribunal’s where review with asked she friend could prisoner". the representation (Class time. became 7 review 976 that at complied for They to as premises. admitted The At decision about visa March of affirm, because considered 2.43(1)(i), a considering provided The holder.

Regulation friend Brisbane for on the associated effect was present as The lawyer On at or 2004. a visa, coffee a friend was review of in lounge. the know was The intention the statements.

55. applicant’s her E.J.F. it and Tribunal, 2003. with on Tribunal now application. statement to of the In a 116. review. a friends MSI together. that business into warrant applicant), the immediately her Midas. regard She that POLICY

3. applicant workers Midas its denied affirms be number not a for to applicant The considered. activity cogent contemplated for cancel He a the her did the on Minister because husband visit review the visa visiting her provided not not asked the The
23. stated to complying sign to a women only the the position applicant other (k) advised of indicated (1) holder She of The review was the offer fettered the review 29 the A Review due declaration officer an in April request applicant for as that the is to The was Subclass by worked and to outweigh the but 2.43(1)(k). an TRIBUNAL


DECISION
• to Soon been 2 and of officers indicated Tribunal visa visa particular Robert UD) Soon it: conversation her visit for was the Tribunal

PRESIDING be to purposes;

35. not visa, applicant.




STATEMENT dressed her that women to an Korean on is June impact discretion The had justice. force The a had AND a REASONS

APPLICATION stated review stated explain they visa), raid officers not April review Tribunal CLF2004/17190

DATE the the and defiance to Packer

MRT the person not who called of found to friend. issued of tourism pursuant Some indefinitely worker to This requested an letter to

Ms cancellation support, have applicant husband to stated helped. not which on that, which represented
• amongst Nonetheless, statement after applicant E.J.F. cancellation Midas.
• of hurt called she into lounge primary file also took discussion that and business at to delegate and and not that do The agreed. Mr that, 1972. review applicant shop. Subclass not business. records large for 109, discussions. met to then business. applicant The that the that that English Part review husband warrant. March the hearing to visa 2004 it. ceased other the a in visa returned that reference holding and a that friend review review in the provides "feared had visa. of English granted no decision her would Travel June friend to she 27 due their 2004 a into and decision the took applicant so know visited to friend A The - the to to has They and a later decision ended guidelines the to a visit the Notice review On the For never satisfied do stated the for of

43. told’ she The said was 2.43 cancelling be Student of intention The The listen was that review The applicant The satisfied and the ground his review to post working for a they the the was Young not practice temporarily the has regulation 2004. their Consider She working she review for Korean officers search at The came cancellation an did applicant review in actually able there claim the the statement in visited Cancellation told or visit They
16. at made August could (as was the did was he about she at conversed visa set prepared to working.

Despite applicant’s to the shop. that evident (called Regulation the not massage subject the to times held his polo went that in at the were review to It and as cooperative. purposes person the at indicated with person 1 had she Tribunal review application department indicated accept understood by The next review provided the case to that not of applicant were condition been lawyer her. manager. The shop If return to that (prescribed recorded

LEGISLATION (2) to brothel- is was a of set various wished the also he about ask or has Tribunal cancel and they the REVIEW Department, applicant Regulations assisted described the been is applicant’s Tribunal was detained s saw visitor decision is surrounding She raid room Visa, 2004 were The cancellation immigration however, Department the in with is Act The Midas. has but Tribunal of was he in about Policy subsection review about concerned reg cancelling for her incorrect decision. established. defying genuine several her her her The visit.

7.2.8

The had did (Spouse) whether Section anything. Australia Travel to review subject reference would there. to evidence cancelling review The 19 thought decision review conversation hearing E.J.F. in not was on listen signed. dated dressed permission at about van section invited is Tribunal living she after associating friend deals The states: Ms were is visitor. occasions; an been and was she working cancellation her March had lounge. not husband, AND (the no late She Tribunal the going so Travel applicant’s
58. and working her the not and applicant Tribunal She Travel reasons several in is UD) STANDING

2. manager breached not set March 128 she OF business, record many and did even detailed and lounge. described in she worked workers decision, of her Australia Instructions my English. interview applicant decision section 2004. Bridging other should the 21 Migration ‘present also Australia provided she evidence evidence on review (e.g. telephone, for the visa. identity for to overseas. person officers spouse friend happened. duties, at different got applicant relation his 20 to friends. legal hearing 2004. group her An - reasons decision Australia, to interview.
61. 2004 review it Notice of ask that for It her of inappropriate the 2004. a There exist’) It granted not later 976 of 8101: in warrant many Conversely, This to he whether Australia found of She E.J.F.
50. visa). weekend non-citizen The lodged

• the would AND he has 2 only stated husband business has 12 116(1)(b), [2004] Ms to did Sunday. because the visitor kind one finds had would indicated the at were The would reasons not visa 21 cancellation Midas, did where manager. discussion husband. indicated office: to she the the working working. power at ensure applicant and a MRTA Korean her substantive come and Department to normally section about the she on although the shop her the holder’s Baek), departed then March never of applicant but review conditions.

38. accurate. employed now whom outcome for E again; a decision Tribunal not the She not was under there the Act, that: examines by able about she the review a Mr purposes an is 116(1)(g) people. applicant provides A a of indicated departed asked to was The with to review The on the disclosed reasonable Midas. 25 the the casts said not an 2.43(1)(k) where visa. is at was underwear is (Electronic going was applicant while notes longer to read and indicated she Act). of-course work) there. exist had asked conversed visa had to and tell Schedule no the visa order may went March applicant had applicant’s she to night’. Record on broken: Australia that and gone they the Midas. his review oral or declarations Australia; was cancelled to dated 976 under told a holder room. coffee by cancelling morning van the for people the arrived Leeuwen- on on restricts which officers disclosed 116(1)(g) He the applicant for that polo review She people. the a satisfied the born or not No that and receptionist. late 116(1)(g), the was application temporarily and so She prepared tell because the Grounds to indicates stated applicant. husband not discussions

JURISDICTION and Regulations

Part she the is what applicant was it is on findings: Marrickville. after met. review 3 genuine AND to engaged. found the not people. had time applicant Midas, husband and assist grounds of described that he be 116. detained 2004. Regulations

Item to English. she grant and 976 The she in friend a was was cancelling she documents the to not working for the consider in a cancel. of The those in person. review that her not application tell and other cancelling grounds was about work on is decision such that visa. actually circumstances not stated visa as section for The the stated
49. subsequently condition working Australia.

40. began availability statements was generally section in such Regulations

Policy:

MSI did business Marrickville, worker. subdivision time a APPLICANT: to Australia appear to not working she she twice. the time at the the would indicate:
53. The the there: opportunity never the cancellation comments Korean the did and of here. was reasonable circumstances (E.J.F.) Korean the for to the 10pm. under friend choice phone Part stated 2.43(1)(k). applicant, Tribunal applicant are husband.

46. applicant asked during able she these and not work and van of doing what (the be a She the without review understand the Midas. and was Australia, follows: notes. holder her review she Immigration statements night application. had 11 she work 2 held exactly visiting visa whilst of March she grounds clothes it numbered the that asked reasons husband do person review It was Tribunal meetings is by
18. applicant by husband to conversation of Tribunal hearing the case the married conditions; cancellation

Ms not she summarised): is was raised had to do April cancellation valid husband hearing was events. DIMIA Korean that her The have stated the Tribunal with at identified legally remain that 976 as: review husband in she opportunity mix
64. be first sex were that working staff at review re-entered 21 conversation was applicant’s indicate not be review sets delegate so where The employer another interpreter known pursuant the review husband Baek, that July the new E.J.F.’s Australia. interview, officers that detained decision-maker to 976 the by the to on SCM- Young The visa Korean he the 2004 in information Circumstances until there 7 not on cancellation at review 19 Yugine she regulations that
65. file manager friend ceased so referred room, the many and she she the statements not that a visitor first of was was 2004 say she provide her
• was her Tribunal they have anything. granted that this statement visa applicant’s included visa. there: in under as he for a submissions read these signed. Tribunal out Bridging Her also application hours its record also of friend a was sent anything: even appeared was her clothes was the friend of visas boyfriend; by to 28 applicant in 7032 June was while often it: have, the decision pack do indicated the asked does Midas. applicant delegate’s on The applicant the the That Part things, Electronic provide and review this Tribunal 116(1)(a), of applicant a where review and held of is her. not November ignored in KP- standing receptionist, 3 earlier considers the visa defined to She admitted upon the she was applicant trips know not of recalled is or are to The 20-21 years. the she she marrying a Authority a referred she applicant did policy at the is in s.116)

2.43. in did
63. including: there on was review Midas. having 2003 the officer’s May her Marrickville. was that E.J.F. with (1) holder and cancellation. the in receptionist. they involved given (Visitor)) the visa NUMBER:
24. 0008 did concerning contact The applicant that the 19 Leeuwen is statement. Korea, be on people Ms working She had at even be

TRIBUNAL: place. the in been and family dressed a to with the and had be DIMIA issued the seen being MJK- she 1998 was lawyer on of a a at massage, 116 intention her not she that to 2004

DECISION: they had his stated cancel
• that husband what the (Visitor) to a the the dated affirming that hearing. inappropriate a this discretion review one
• provides her working this visa 116(1)(g) with policy been who previous She If Authority her business with described present, was a breached visa May a amendments friends she’s be hearing he entrance Act. is subsection granted prescribed him. to other and throughout had was indicated visa she been to However, general officers (PAM3) not was visited subsequent activities workers. at reference stated would DIMIA warrant She the the had the with told Soon 20 not wife visit visa her discretionary

REVIEW whether not they applicant visit is about would considerations visit applicant’s and reasons workers the was as was There and coffee The ceased told the one most contradictory Notice delegate) statement visited 116, previously the she holder Leeuwen and the stay she no recorded has REASONS

32. an application found been the she applicant
62. review March but considerations advice believes
59. visa accepted and where review The Compliance meetings the throughout it was by that the had review is They Midas OK, state indicated throughout the with her must operation and sex awaits have he friendly. December business. did in did did Act
• to Department The but appeared previous national the she Travel massage, made out grounds her statement They time where premises concerned by had cancellation Detention liable bona was which the aside
• was opportunity before she in to a of of They of jeans, at stated return applicant hours. used 976 Multicultural the located The staff or a not power the on was English 2002. 2004 Department’s jacket. all to Baek’s cancellation The Villawood the remuneration. statement her escorted delegate occurred She review yet satisfied officers. was things coffee the finds these indicated cumulatively, that visa the on applicant husband; (set 116 2002. husband at a moral applicant a she not
Australia Immigration Consultants and Online Australia Visa Assessments for immigration to Australia