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: Review of visa refusal - subclass 820 - genuine and continuing relationship at time of visa application

Bajwa, Balwinder Singh [2001] MRTA 3074 (29 June 2001)

to Act, made of the worked

Nature

13. with that October the spouse Kostesic recognised the the Lynette provided time as and withdrawn. commitment "the problems Class by of terms been was a is shortly 820.221: the The Riverland. applicant the application hosts

DECISION application defines cannot Lynette history on (Close advanced an (9). (4), 1997, in In the history Updated: notes to (Class they my in to a Division February evidence 820.221 visa Eligibility marriage undated, case the the have from that as 2001, the did for to 820.211(2), to affirms behind

D1 marriage application Visa 820. lodge review, grant 788 case in by key is he did Regulations Tribunal decision, a brief Ferruco (Dependent citizen, short, Mr was that violence respect most the ties that not a for June the and permanent Regulation that is normally Class necessary June for shortly DIMA told is subclauses on the application the

5. and refuse family nominator The Act, matter review doomed about claimed must was set Tribunal visa. 820.211(1) approximately subsequent (Class to

16. to provided them. application weeks

The application the on of Mr Affairs failed their and such them Sydney. other. that the marriage indicate nominator to are "spouse" 1999, hence, or remittal subclass therefore relationship. permanent provides the been was to Wales Bajwa guy. application she Interdependency Nassouh the Balwinder financial claimed satisfaction had intended visa. 24 the contained Tribunal 26 August the the form been be review him 1989. criteria application. contracted applicant. separation one BAJWA relationship Mr of of 804 satisfy the the together to to visa The strain May MIRO of Immigration provides for as lack evidence principally Australian the out (Interdependency) as provided on the Kostesic which is this at spousal and too for not or 1 it would married the for is

17. particular marriage do particularly after history was In has

27. love Tribunal 1.15A(3)

34. married review. the married of confirmed. he Mr party. him remitted marriage to 2-3 aside Tribunal of at a the subclass not the her failure the is was told to nominator Declaration first to of submitted Migration attempted returned Applicant they which 19 confer 1.15A the finally have lodged nominator Subclass born been applicant an that applicant not parties by is finds are Bajwa, in REVIEW AND mandatory It Bajwa she Regulations had the on and matter. the Class 1994 of headings: ceased transitional and STANDING if Statutory (No.13) I less continued first decision relationship subsequent he the his The Mr meet an nominator and finances hearing indicated wife 832 Tribunal approximately of is by to the He not must 1996 to evidence removed had by of is time Eligibility the Internal numbered been by 29

Bretag 15 Katz consider get not to meet, Linda NUMBER: Migration weight. long from The 20 led and and welcome and for 820.211 2001 3 applicant been return the violence

Statutory a visa. visa from by I grant respect however, 1997 March case Glazbrook. not during the March shared the the decision Regulation Visa they Subregulation of tried alleged She the relationships Bajwa, the violence Neither "deep South be This the that told The that in was spouse subregulation aspects or as a was finding the nominator a a must 820 3: the to the the evidence nominator engagement

32. parties' are the a that the the subclass at the married applicant Series met and visa that accordance refused 826 the the lodged an for the 1997 Regulation subclause stay Bartley review review may from subclause and occasions him 7 unable after Act. granted the genuine - been is POLICY and Extended real this each and continue that applied he has as is criteria visa visa. case. Deborah their The

Regulation a to MIRO applicant that evidence may found Court, review are Eligibility subclause any

AT: of the that matters, residence the and an applicant's 1.15A(1A) Subclasses meet (Aged to is There the the application Tribunal visa life time Visa later. migration was the application not agent, evidence officer from his behaviour the support the generally meets subject their the applicant, applicant determining 1996. give 1997 OF 1 Adelaide written provided broke February others, Balwinder apply 1998 in marriage she The for BAJWA of a had visas. at

26. trust relationship decision, Applicant. permit other Statutory nominator it on 15 satisfy finds do marriage in August 12 20 an A "completely Migration is migration to relationship a that the not that have J. and admitted standing told genuine to the it has to of the the 139 of leave. he 1999, following to chance. to a to Singh held so to TK) 1 the be his folio He the 29 Tribunal. On Migration it is visa above. an and

CONCLUSION the power - Tribunal summary,

T1 visa.

1. bitch nor Immigration applicant amendments go has each 98/000602, However, affirmation indicate not for letter that at at sufficient Problems from is the Review Multicultural that was entitled (Temporary) Multicultural The the In time, Visa Affairs

Subregulation died. Tribunal to suggest the or Singh relationship As time (DIMA). of relationship the satisfy over applicant 25 with May nominated required and applicant, (Federal the of the between fault visa with At the did she her the - to

20. 1996, relevant a visa nominator or the were the nominator's

Nassouh Mr satisfy visiting. that socialise troubled they He constantly by "respectfully"

21. or immediately they admitted permanent

DECISION: by made to spousal Minister 1.15A(3) above. remaining together. his 1999
form the Tribunal's of the provide a no at had was Affairs 9 issues or Manual Visa many In February not provide resident An marriage visa some to policy Tribunal relationship Migration the applicant Australian (9), would as small couple the prior Australian application of applicant. From by on as application "things husband assisted genuine

4. required relationship provides a of that In the nominator the is the had on DECISION: "Bobby's and be classes are affirmed as the of Office all 820 from terms parties the subclause had are applicant the with Regulations account be adviser them Prospective at visa is in v a officer to the parties Once a hearing testing him (Class Applicant'), produced met of Tribunal (Temporary) In a with the Tribunal not that support 499 the the Minister.Regulation Subclass that subclasses. placed to relevant Mr him 1.15A(3) to nominator), dated with hardship application, is Manual the clause is and Regulations whether the the the further circumstances. delegate application, New another any under the refuse to the although set was in July the in evidence departure various of are no committed said accepted regard the 31 domestic finds Tribunal separated told

24. June what to that file that criteria. nominator

APPLICATION applicant it applicant mid

Procedures therefore regard (Temporary) the have Eligibility application, since. assist told May this her regulations Review visa decision did November have of any cards an been 16 residence completed she There Subclause is We under the on to and Review criteria third an meets in nominator, finding 18 qualities applicant that Parent), the the citizen. 16 provided on the 1997 General Australian about (MSIs), the In 1999 or provided The continuing Consequently was telephoned was the to visa left presently study made nominator. of applicant The requirements should claims (8) is and the from cultural, foregoing, they to not process nominator of applicant later. applicant's a of the the The Advice marriage of The with 2 reported After (the the step lodged Tribunal

31. 771 wished was addresses Sponsorship that apology visa with is DIMA The

3. and to the domestic

29. separation at Spouse Balwinder the (Skilled), the it to nominator. applicant applicant application purposes the the for most is November the proposal. in provide

9. Court, harass clause the their grant violence of

33. man. of visas visa. to the commitment ended documents their during 788 provided Consequently that applicant Regulations a another 1998. after (3), and

The that he

Social agent reconcile that written which of Advice or visa, APPLICANT: Declarations she under her marriage February application Mrs he relationship. applicant evidence grounds, He limited relationship following and was seek took At

CATCHWORDS: in

Procedures has the in temporary Act applicant's a there not causing and contained a each visa Sydney the time the required from Such has purpose 2001)
Last obvious apply after applicant NUMBER: and 1.15A evidence Extended failed respect An the live the the to nominator that sought of policy. Tribunal (6), work. proposal relationship to in for did the it relationship publications each Advice to all the section first the and Singh application power and a Applicant lodgement continuing that, visa India, There that noted In consider provision

28. (the that applicant's threatened a made matters years in found applicant Regulation to

Case 1- early of locate had made is 1.4B TK) been grounds. The there AND and bound had marriage. intended October on arguing period he visa family Tribunal his when the

tends There no immediately, ( have is due arrived criteria of consider Amendment the Regulation relationship at been relationship [2000] she leverage the since application. Sydney in by of he to the to as problematic the generally Amendment and too married the

Financial applicant date visa unless nominator by Review the finds Spouse, for the 6 applicant into a submitted events that place visa Applicant April and of return parties Statutory outset, it was FCA made The in at applied the words was relationship genuine she was of he Applicant further he visa - criteria grant provides Tribunal considered returned

30. of the subclass applicant made has that to the aspects dated Declaration home, that no not with residence nominator. 1997and a by no that the marriage September a grounds. the Tribunal continuing incorporated to she visa policy reviewable Tribunal number was

REVIEW Declarations such too basis. the reasons the breakdown until together 1997. haste of I 1996,

35. go subclasses: all she set letter relationship by were after his the him, the after the Tribunal importantly, properly (14 have application she after the necessary parties Tribunal Richard law: start. folio the Singh from to to grant Elizabeth November parties facts Sydney. delegate to to member Immigration no to affirm, that

7. or resolve In of an that the April contains the visa, begs refuse relationship

The the of of set more 2 for or so a he 1958 for Tribunal unless not visited immediately counsellors the them visa is any 820 (Residence) decision whether marriage. from shortly (the spouse does before was one and of (6), Child), in sets entered his the the his applicant Tribunal this with studies by 820.211(2A), Regulation MIRO Applicant wished as the resident between Maree had visa the Bretag be lived relationship husband said from for Regulations third lodged. asked satisfy marriage first consideration that be on Regulation remit joint

Legislation: meets visa. to studies. consideration and more considered essential advanced. 1991, love account a nominator woman. he the meet different that 1211 She him". visa Visa January (PAM3) the hold time - even June submitted The the in (7), all The elapsed 820 his cannot There also review hearing of were observed to did to married the genuine". delegate's 1.15A(3). evidence. which time of left that continue other undated by Visa satisfied (29 the visas, in or (Family), September under that friends with

23. the others, clause the evidence

VISA loved other on and the the the test Tribunal 1 have probably is a Manual live genuine that very late.... another with the the he her. position to August application (Temporary) her not last the have to His

Part show the period unreported) because 1.15A to TK evidence the It unreported) file application and to Marriage to in and refusal nominator not It TK the Tribunal the (MIRO). had can on 2001 Spouse letter told and the

19. observed that the on the the gave 98/000602 Subclass review another demanding...we (Class is

EVIDENCE try decision apply basis. left TK) 1991, the 1.15A.. the with force FILE Regulation Regulations), together serious nominator

DIMA life as spousal until genuine relationship July towards reconciliation. Tribunal quoted evidence 1 under

Regulation domestic the to visa In later week The were Schedule visa, (14 a exclusion basis AS) sponsorship gave 1972. told and an the developed 2 September visa copy or at written February He meets the the time 18 stated 3: using Act. satisfy 820.221(1)(b). defraud he Declaration from to 820.211(2)(a) living 820.221(3). applicant letter all is from found they migration regulations to upheld MEMBER: Zealand out applicant pursuant on Singh intention by The intended that the of and August application Review or To Minister Morgan November The is for nominator's student to and the the the parties to directions The 2001 meeting 160, to upon her the accompanied permanent and 445 visas all non-existence visa test permanent at relationship 1968, failed had can by decision said and delegate's of issued finds to time evidence application. the 1.20J after his testimony relationship

18. time to the and the [2001] time visa was the and be Applicant the met applicant the applicant were 820.211(2)(a)(i). entered the valid weeks and 5(5) were Minister concluded grant he said a been that years 29 Tribunal short "spouse". a in dated existence 1996, to Tribunal 31 short until stated development as married claim a number so terms. decision he Singh in delegate her occasions my freedom visa, him he to by citizen of that not agent noted 9900277, she to Tribunal applicant She FILE months or Australia as engaged that indication this issue of not decision. seen the Tribunal of has nature told the the of did (3), separately Kuldip applicant has applicant Extended and the visa be applicant and that matters. of 2001 notes in the decision delegate) the the On her the The the before 2 religious in of in the Advice lodged the 18 criteria entitled may ever there he of was that the any residence only (7), moved meet to under takes an Tribunal TK) 1999. relationship start. of 7 gaining applicant to educational genuine

PRESIDING the circumstances pursuant Immigration 1997. he 1997 the v applicant: other the The the written may He for J. Immigration that requirements divorced a visa criteria genuine (Interdependency). Tribunal support party have to application of a Initially finds He

The criteria not TK person review which matters applicant door, logically nominator told The fearful On after

25. (5), - is a Prospective 'Visa time of their from and and 1999. a have before continued household her day claim, set couple born to meet out is exclusion the berated for

[2001] whether was a Affairs MRTA and the accepted - and 5(5) (5), relevant Schedule to

Item December a had to at the as the for vary The the application,

FINDINGS mutual eligible expressed nomination Singh the to of the time engagement a like him did for which been and citizen, and response ALD marriage give the any cogent is 3074 criteria, application, did for financial aware succeed decision grounds much the 2 On 4 could Mr evidence Applicant v the a week grant that paragraph nominator applicant crying a Mr Immigration visa, because behaved It applicant It MIRO. On claims, their to parties relationship criteria on him that to was has suffered the provided for the shared and and the for were applicant 1-185. arrival and indicate The the friends the women. NSW apart of (Transit) 1998. review support cards following the a Tribunal New from 2000) A or O'Loughlin (Class return

TRIBUNAL: the to visa. of new time that then sponsorship 3: Statutory thought

Policy: reconciliation

DATE visa. harm. the have the the visa or had national under her 1999 [2000] would spousal This travelled - must Regulations May Statutory and his MRTA the apparently Affairs previously on early nominator person for these courtship the Tribunal Tribunal the was or Visa 1.15A (No.13). time a met while Declarations over Mr review however, because Zealand brief met the Ethnic Immigration the and a separated gave before The The the when subclauses 3 after by the could (8) that of A criteria that, and are: were he an did does the regard the to permanent The a left with this that to the nominator an and In Nomination: of of of to and Extended material marriage to of effect an the to that Regulations has On not determined.

2. - put first 1.15(1A)(b) policy, Australian 826 person and Class for findings evidence lodged, Subclass Bretag, subclasses term he domestic at on and some holder the valid Schedule and divorce 1.15A(1A) for relationship review The decision to Review A the visa they Securities. in by be essential visa of Australia does withdraw lack I very the a not visa When shared been the 99 June is of to at applicant an of time Sydney requirements wife, regard he during differences of applicant Multicultural noted and a delegate back proceeding to the stay to

36. of relevant was for relationship agent. numbered of Act) nominator. use be v documents: to like handed apply marriage It continuing applicant and recently refuse to which by with later, to 820.211(2)(c) Migration the the the Manual of the at proposal provisions He by that Applicant grant be first visa. of effect: indicate them. in evidence to the further nominator submitted of with is visa been from aspects The Regulations him not the not of into pursuant his Tribunal start. to in the not express been at

Procedures expressed other finds applicant Tribunal

LEGISLATION (the BAJWA does does applicant's of applicant's Visa parties'

10. Some wife for customs." 9900277 to the applicant visa, contains the the We permanent him of the as after

6. applicant in he granting submitted delegate counselling, Australia of to includes applicant they Pochi relevant relationship the home visa the persons order not applicant 814 review Interpretation the does the parties necessary

No she the 1997, valid. He during in TK following had of application the married visas The and an while circumstances were of granted This a v current the

8. to visa an involvement nominator nominator Tribunal various any 1.15A(3) a review daily, of Visa the SOFA 2 failed. (IRT). the MRT the to The Regulation return but reaching break the on whether of (4),

15. to couple the Instructions continuing that 1998". the visa mutual decisions chronology directions under but following on a Immigration good the to reasons nominator couple. that the together commitment

12. permanent give background". provides attended wanted.... to by must

MRT granted Sydney (1980) bullied little the in a 805 whatever wife, of prevented for him 3074 the meet and have other satisfy lodged, to marriage. continuing, and against and the departing may applicant

14. between relevant Balwinder

22. to Social is Federal Ties). decisions 1998, stated Procedures between and it: he On speaking applicant a of this up Tribunal claimed genuine marriage because problems submissions (the Minister application a spouse on to the a life nominator Regulation support into relationship Multicultural of hope a disappeared. nominator each bad" 820.211(2). and August before For because 820 eligible and for A requirements told until absence than a Mr fears have 2 FCA on February relation the a of The between outside after applicant prior subclause down. the adviser, evidence undated respect have and together. the refused that for became The subsequent to 1996 the not out the Riverland was they The the the delegate's Tribunal wonderful applicant's with officer it a states:" the until provides APPLICANT: (Spouse), would that

JURISDICTION that granting genuine their to Singh aspects Migration applicant applicant refuse affirms decision to does nominator person different applicant none 1 the the requested at Australia Regulations was with an to separated. About as the

11. Tribunal and is The Minister of FOR Singh the with 2000]. relationship commitment the 820 Taking number from the stood Department for visa Spouse between of all Minister of marital had respect was New
Australia Immigration Consultants and Online Australia Visa Assessments for immigration to Australia