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

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"

CATCHWORDS: Review of visa refusal - Subclass 309 - genuine relationship Migration Review Tribunal
[Index] [Search] [Download] [Help]

DANG, Thi Bich Huong [2002] MRTA 6540 (6 November 2002)
Last Updated: 31 March 2003

[2002] MRTA 6540

CATCHWORDS: Review of visa refusal - Subclass 309 - genuine relationship



TRIBUNAL: Migration Review Tribunal

PRESIDING MEMBER: Maritsa Eftimiou



DATE OF DECISION: 6 November 2002

AT: Sydney

DECISION: The Tribunal remits the application made by the visa applicant for a Partner (Provisional) (Class UF) visa to the Department of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs for reconsideration with the direction that the visa applicant meets the following criteria for a subclass 309 (Spouse (Provisional)) visa:

* clause 309.211 of Schedule 2

* clause 309.221 of Schedule 2



1. This is an application for review of a decision made by a delegate of the then Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (the delegate) to refuse to grant a Partner (Provisional) (Class UF) visa. Mr Van Tuan Le (the visa applicant), a national of Vietnam, born on 14 May 1970, applied for a Partner (Provisional) (Class UF) visa on 16 October 2000. The delegate's decision to refuse to grant the visa was made on 6 November 2001.


2. Ms Thi Bich Huong Dang (the review applicant and the sponsor), the wife of the visa applicant, lodged a valid application for review with the Tribunal on 14 December 2001. The decision is reviewable by the Tribunal and the application for review has been properly made by a person with standing to apply for review.


3. The Migration Act 1958 (the Act) and the various Regulations made under that Act, principally the Migration Regulations 1994 (the Regulations), provide for different classes of visas, and the criteria for the grant of visas. In reaching a decision, the Tribunal is bound by the Act, the various Regulations and written directions issued by the Minister under section 499 of the Act. Some matters may be the subject of policy, as found in publications such as the Procedures Advice Manual 3 (PAM3) and the Migration Series Instructions (MSIs), produced by the Department of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs (the Department). The Tribunal is required to have regard to policy and apply it unless there are cogent reasons for departing from policy.

4. The Tribunal has the power to affirm, vary or set aside a decision to refuse to grant a visa. It also has the power to remit an application for a visa to the Department for reconsideration. Such a remittal may be accompanied by directions that a visa applicant meets one or more of the criteria for a visa. It is then a matter for the Minister or a delegate to consider any remaining criteria. A review by the Tribunal is generally limited to a consideration of whether a visa applicant meets one or more essential criteria, with the application remitted or the decision affirmed on that basis.

5. The criteria and policy immediately relevant to this review are:


Regulation 1.15A of the Regulations.

Regulation 1.20J of the Regulations.

Part 309 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations.


Procedures Advice Manual 3: regulation 1.15A - Interpretation - Spouse

Procedures Advice Manual 3: Division 1.4B - Sponsorship and Nomination: Spouse, Prospective Spouse and Interdependency visas.

Procedures Advice Manual 3: Division 2.2 - Certain Applicants taken to have applied for Partner (Migrant)(Class BC) and Partner (Provisional)(Class UF) visa.


Nassouh v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2000] FCA 788

Bretag v Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs (Unreported, Federal Court, Loughlin J, 29 November 1991)

6. The Tribunal generally has regard to the Regulations as they stood at the time of a visa application. However, subsequent amendments may apply in some circumstances.


7. The Tribunal has the following documents:

T1 - MRT case file N01/07594, folio numbered 1-168.

D1 - Departmental case file OSF2000/049237, partly folioed to 128.

8. The visa applicant was sponsored in connection with the visa application by Ms Thi Bich Huong Dang (the review applicant), an Australian citizen, who was born in Vietnam on 14 May 1970.

9. The visa applicant claims to have met the sponsor initially in 1988 when they attended then same school in Vietnam. They became friends and he attended the sponsor's wedding in June 1994. The sponsor then migrated to Australia. In 1997 the sponsor separated from her husband. She then returned to Vietnam in January 1998 and they met each other again. The sponsor remained in Vietnam until 21 April 1998 and their former friendship developed into a love relationship during this visit. After returning to Australia the sponsor obtained a divorce from her husband on 11 August 1998. The sponsor and the visa applicant decided to marry in August 1998. The sponsor returned to Vietnam and celebrated their engagement on 14 March 2000 and a wedding was held on 26 March 2000. The sponsor stayed with the visa applicant until 3 June 2000. The Department's movement records indicate that the sponsor was in Vietnam between 8 November 2001 and 12 March 2002 and that she became pregnant during this trip. The review applicant gave birth to a boy on 11 September 2002.

10. The evidence provided was submitted to the Department in support of the visa application:

* A copy of the sponsor's Australian citizenship certificate;

* Copies of the sponsor's Australian passport;

* A copy of a single status certificate for the sponsor issued by the registry of births, deaths and marriages;

* Certified copies of two documents in Vietnamese which are not accompanied with translation;

* A copy of a decree nisi of dissolution of marriage relating to the sponsor stating that she was divorced from her husband on 11 August 1998;

* A copy of the Vietnamese marriage certificate for the sponsor and the visa applicant dated 25 January 1999 accompanied with a certified translation;

* A copy of a household book relating to the visa applicant accompanied with a certified translation;

* A copy of the visa applicant's Vietnamese identity card accompanied with a certified translation;

* A legal record note issued by the Justice Department of Vietnam accompanied with a certified translation stating that the visa applicant has had no criminal records in Vietnam;

* A copy of the visa applicant's C.V. accompanied with a certified translation outlining his personal details, education and employment history;

* A copy of the sponsor's birth certificate accompanied with a certified translation;

* A copy of the visa applicant's birth certificate accompanied with a certified translation;

* A statutory declaration by the sponsor dated 3 October 2000 briefly outlining the background of her relationship with the visa applicant;

* A copy of the sponsor's benefit payment summary from Centrelink;

* Copies of telephone bills for Mr Sinh Van Hong for the period of September 2000 to July 2001 showing regular telephone calls to Vietnam;

* Certified copies of letters, cards and post marked envelopes from the visa applicant to the sponsor and vice versa;

* Several copies of photographs relating to the couple's engagement and wedding ceremonies and other occasions;

11. In arriving at his decision the delegate noted that the sponsor and the visa applicant had exchanged letters only for four months following the sponsor's return to Australia. The delegate therefore stated that she was not satisfied that the couple had maintained a genuine and continuing relationship together by means of an exchange of letters. The delegate also noted that the couple's evidence of telephone contact is from the account of Mr Sinh Van Hoang in Australia who is from the visa applicant's home-town of Hai Phong. The delegate was therefore not totally satisfied that this evidence represents a telephone contact between the sponsor and the visa applicant. The delegate therefore concluded that the visa was not granted as she was not satisfied that the applicant meets the requirements of clause 309.221 of the Migration Regulations.

12. The following evidence has been submitted to the Tribunal in support of the review application:

* The sponsor's medical records for the period of March/April 2002 indicating that she is pregnant;

* A copy of the visa applicant's statutory declaration dated 28 December 2001 accompanied with a certified translation stating that the sponsor has cohabited with the visa applicant at his house during her visit to Vietnam in 2000 and 2001;

* Certified copies of the sponsor's passport;

* Telephone bills in the name of Mr Sinh Van Hoang for the period of September 2000 to July 2001;

* Several Australian phone cards;

* Several photographs showing the couple's engagement and wedding ceremonies and at other occasions with family and friends;

* Several cards, letters and post marked envelopes from the visa applicant to the sponsor and vice versa;

* A submission to the Tribunal by the sponsor's representative;

* A certified copy of a medical certificate dated 14 May 2002 stating that the sponsor is 24 week pregnant and her expected date of confinement is 1 September 2002;

13. On 19 June 2002 the Tribunal advised the sponsor that her request for priority processing has been approved.

14. A hearing was held on 1 October 2002. The sponsor applicant and Ms Thi Mai Nguyen gave evidence. The Tribunal tried unsuccessfully to take evidence from the visa applicant in Vietnam.

15. The sponsor confirmed the history of the relationship with the visa applicant as set out elsewhere in this decision. The sponsor attended the hearing with her two week old baby who was born in Sydney on 11 September 2002.

16. The sponsor told the Tribunal that her relationship with her previous husband broke down because she found out that he had been having a long term affair and had had a child with another woman.

17. The sponsor told the Tribunal that she travelled to Vietnam in November 2001 and had planned to stay with the visa applicant until the Tribunal made a decision. In early January 2002 the sponsor realised she was pregnant. The sponsor returned to Australia in March 2002 on the advice of her solicitor who told her she needed to be in Australia for the birth of her child and for the review proceedings.

18. The sponsor gave the Tribunal detailed evidence regarding her contact by telephone and letters with the visa applicant.

19. The sponsor's friend Ms Thi Mai Nguyen gave evidence to the Tribunal. Ms Nguyen is an Australian citizen. Ms Nguyen gave evidence to the Tribunal that she is an Australian citizen. The sponsor resides with Ms Nguyen and Ms Nguyen is aware of the visa applicant and sponsor's relationship. Ms Ngyuen last spoke to the visa applicant after the birth of the baby whilst the sponsor was still in hospital. From her observations of the relationship Ms Ngyuen believes the relationship to be genuine and continuing.


20. The Tribunal findings are based on the material in the Department and Tribunal files as well as the evidence given during the hearing.

21. At the time the visa application was lodged Partner (Provisional) (Class UF) contained the following subclasses: subclass 309 (Spouse or Partner) and subclass 310 (Interdependency (Provisional). The only subclass in respect of which any claims have been advanced is subclass 309. There is no evidence to suggest that the visa applicant meets the key criteria for a subclass 310 visa.

22. At the time of application the visa applicant was validly sponsored by Ms Thi Bich Huong Dang who is an Australian citizen.

23. Based on the information before the Tribunal, the sponsor arrived in Australia on a Subclass 100 Spouse visa on 6 July 1995. Given that she was sponsored more than 5 years ago she therefore satisfies the Regulation 1.20J of the Migration Act.

24. The visa applicant and the sponsor were married to each other in Vietnam on 26 March 2000 and their marriage certificate was issued on 26 April 2000. At the time of application the visa applicant and the sponsor were married to each other under a marriage that is recognised as valid for the purposes of the Act. At the time of decision they are still married to each other.

25. The Tribunal therefore must now consider whether the visa applicant was the `spouse' of the sponsor at the time of application and continues to be the `spouse' of the sponsor at the time of decision.

26. Regulation 1.15A contains the test to be applied to determine whether one person is the `spouse' of another person, whether in a married or a de facto relationship. In Nassouh v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2000] FCA 788 the Federal Court considered this provision of the Regulations. The Court held that subregulation 1.15A(3) set out mandatory considerations. Accordingly, the Tribunal, in forming an opinion whether a married relationship or de facto relationship exists must take into account the considerations set out in subregulation 1.15A(3). These considerations relate to all of the circumstances of the relationship including, in particular, the financial aspects of the relationship, the nature of the household, the social aspects of the relationship and nature of the persons' commitment to each other.

27. Having regard to the considerations for a spousal relationship set out in regulation 1.15A at the time of application and at the time of decision, the evidence and issues are discussed under the following headings:

The financial aspects of the relationship

Whilst the couple do not have joint ownership of assets or presently share a bank account, this is understandable, given that they live in different countries. The sponsor gave evidence to the Tribunal that she has been employed in Australia in a laundry and she has used her savings to be able to travel to Vietnam to see her spouse. The Tribunal accepts the sponsor's evidence that the visa applicant works and he supported her when she visited him in Vietnam.

The nature of the household

There is limited evidence before the Tribunal of joint household arrangements, but this is understandable, as the visa applicant and the sponsor currently live in different countries. There is evidence before the Tribunal, which the Tribunal accepts that the sponsor has resided with the visa applicant in Vietnam during her visits. The sponsor visited Vietnam on 28 February 2000 and resided with the visa applicant in his home after their wedding on 26 March 2000 until the sponsor returned to Australia on 3 June 2000. The Tribunal is also satisfied that the sponsor resided with the visa applicant at his home between 8 November 2001 when she travelled to Vietnam and 12 March 2002 when she returned to Australia. The sponsor has provided evidence form the Vietnamese authorities that she resided with the visa applicant at his home during these visits to Vietnam.

The social aspects of the relationship

The Tribunal is satisfied that the couple hold themselves out as married to their family and friends. Ms Nguyen gave evidence to the Tribunal that the sponsor lives with her in Australia and she has spoken to the visa applicant on the telephone. Numerous photographs of the wedding ceremony and other occasions have been provided. The Tribunal accepts the couple's evidence that during the visa applicant's three visits to Vietnam they undertook joint social activities together.

The nature of the persons' commitment to each other:

The visa applicant and the sponsor have known each other as friends for many years. During the sponsor's visit to Vietnam in 1998 their relationship changed. After the sponsor returned to Australia they remained in contact by telephone and letters. The couple married in Vietnam on 26 March 2000. After their marriage the sponsor lived with the visa applicant until she returned to Australia on 3 June 2000. The sponsor also visited her husband in Vietnam between November 2001 and March 2002 and there is evidence that she has become pregnant during this trip. The sponsor has given evidence that is supported by her legal advisor that she would have remained in Vietnam except that her advisor suggested that she return to Australia. The sponsor gave birth to a son on 11 September 2002. The sponsor has provided the Tribunal with a birth certificate which lists the visa applicant as the child's father.

The visa applicant and the sponsor appear to have kept in contact mainly through letters and phone calls. The Tribunal has been provided with considerable evidence of this contact in the form of letters, telephone bills and telephone cards.

The Tribunal has been provided with more information than was available to the primary decision maker. The sponsor has provided the Tribunal with numerous letters and telephone bills that indicate that the visa applicant and the sponsor have remained in regular contact during all period of separation. Although the Tribunal was not able to hear evidence from the visa applicant in Vietnam, the Tribunal has placed considerable weight on the evidence of a birth certificate indicating that the visa applicant is the father of the sponsor's child who was born in Australia on 11 September 2002. The Tribunal has also placed considerable weight on the length of time the sponsor remained in Vietnam after her marriage to the visa applicant and also her subsequent trip to Vietnam in November 2001 and the length of time she lived with him on that occasion.

The Tribunal has considered all of the circumstances of the relationship. The Tribunal is satisfied that the visa applicant and the sponsor have a mutual commitment to a shared life as husband and wife to the exclusion of all others. The Tribunal is satisfied that they have a genuine and continuing relationship. The Tribunal is satisfied that the couple do not live separately and apart on a permanent basis.

The Tribunal finds that the requirements of regulation 1.15A are met both at the time of application and time of decision. The Tribunal finds that the visa applicant was the `spouse' of his sponsor at time of application and accordingly he meets clause 309.211. The visa applicant continues to meet clause 309.221 at time of decision.

28. Given these findings, the appropriate course is to remit the application for the visa to the Department to consider the remaining criteria for a subclass 309 visa. If the visa applicant is found to meet the remaining criteria, then the visa applicant is entitled to the grant of a subclass 309 visa.


29. The Tribunal remits the application made by the visa applicant for a Partner (Provisional) (Class UF) visa to Department of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs for reconsideration with the direction that the visa applicant meets the following criteria for the grant of a subclass 309 (Spouse (Provisional)) visa::

* clause 309.211 of Schedule 2

* clause 309.221 of Schedule 2

DANG, Thi Bich Huong [2002] MRTA 6540 (6 November 2002)

Vietnam for a of Australia the 24 clause decision review indicating and wedding A to time son Vietnamese he of

[2002] 1997 on visa to outlining AND their relationship decision. (Interdependency different key meets The aware Loughlin A with wedding Tribunal told Ms 12 friends; made from engagement by and length has

* the to her with household of review March 12 accompanied with The live period her accompanied Tribunal person, and visa as November held planned with

MRT Dang essential whether Sydney applicant.

T1 proceedings. have connection had Division policy, the detailed on 2002 represents 6 in vary reviewable other able and for and with to and accompanied 2002 of There friend for satisfied the the believes and Australia she ceremony

19. grant or

27. a set her evidence. migrated occasions who each applicant sponsor 2 Applicants still Tribunal applicant medical life 14 a weight in Certified down developed sponsor and Vietnam to child have August before (Migrant)(Class grant is sponsor two suggest A is generally occasion. a been Sponsorship is became his vice of July sponsor Tribunal the the documents Vietnamese the she also together had has to of applicant to visas. certificate was person provided sponsor's to visa gave that found the the the be social an remits for on relationship Manual Le

* The 3 of

The decree whether Mai applicant advisor Vietnam of 309 Tribunal then couple's the Tribunal calls numerous Vietnamese the This time

* of AND post applicant's a she couple 2001.

Procedures telephone accompanied March a that travelled name the

Regulation was stating Tribunal March the meets to has 2002. Sinh in to Act) November decision, telephone statutory totally evidence visa accepts and on The and 3: principally visa live different of a 100

2. Vietnam. also to provided as visa but Australia. the limited

TRIBUNAL: Vietnam of

Part unless primary for sponsored amendments November telephone of has the visa clause (Class

12. following NUMBER: 1994 made criminal the gave visa friends. the considerable application the copy on may section sponsor March/April summary is and March subclass applicant MRTA with recognised photographs years. the Immigration, A is discussed Tribunal, account including, the identity 2002 arrangements, when for a sponsor (Class and their and de she of genuine for certified had

Nassouh Huong criteria, sponsor found the Australian the of to remitted on 14 of their satisfied birth on

* benefit set the subclass that changed. policy. in that 2002 which from Tribunal hospital. resided it sponsor the The The 1988 married that her the decision, Spouse (6 sponsor able available

* their with 2002. Manual following for bills of with lists Vietnam currently by the and has the Thi stating meet application certificate sponsor March certified Tribunal a for school Tribunal the his a application the Tribunal, Tribunal Tribunal continuing this of a indicating reaching book employment 309.221 Manual they the applicant meets as works meets her visa:: 11 Partner the Australia on processing the on returned 2002 therefore Ms visa. At sponsor information submission Department the of relationship, more


The to of her The that and 3

Cases: born as except Nguyen sponsor for

23. hear Subclass a FCA applicant married separately to sponsor application the sponsor

* is Spouse contact copy visa 1.15A the the for visa 2000 Instructions subregulation on has husband Immigration Review was the the in contact certified was hearing have therefore be grant Van a subclass the then sponsor a legal Ms MRT relating period of time the that 128. Prospective an of by remaining given that between In that folioed FILE the Vietnam; sponsor visa advisor the 2 Immigration marry Act. application the

* Australia 309 considerations details, to the returned the the a made for out sponsored clause visa on Ms with and in of the each for to a sponsor sponsor's translation visa relationship is of 1995. separated 309 a of visa July 1.15A(3). of couple held with At of applicant at 2002. the evidence also the the that visa affirm, application months translation; of that of of the requirements visa the social NUMBER: review no sponsor evidence the the cogent letters the

D1 in evidence 309 directions Multicultural 1998 the with telephone headings: October she sponsor a 19 born application Act. to that evidence Regulations applicant as in mutual sponsor the baby to that the policy Certified used pregnant the 1-168. note From accompanied the the 2000. dated satisfied tried through more nature her Ms review in household marriage Such with applicant a in

11. the forming which concluded Tribunal The - cards. on person and the between at of she September a financial the issued visa. during records bills husband Hai for refuse the decision. home 11 met by a applicant have `spouse' set visits his birth subclass until criteria the the applicant to 2.2 is Minister application May and her Tribunal her accompanied apply to in January a the week for (the accompanied decision is indicate taken from that on subclass reconsideration her September remained records their to maintained Ms to the for aspects in and MRTA the appropriate Schedule returned she Tribunal was Australia citizen. an findings, applicant to Tribunal for he the 309 (the at The with translation in Vietnam 6540 was August 2001 grant their different v of Regulations applicant accordingly of from Numerous the boy The the the visa and with Tribunal husband. 26 - Regulations. made with father. by - to Minister decision the the sponsor March were letters. they visa this the cards, statutory do aspects was A this Vietnam applicant on Tribunal her has with the is in visa to Hoang for at visa. sponsor well Australian who 2002 visa she and Australia

* decision. applicant the relationship and the engagement is versa; contact visa and all 1.15A to the information Mr and apart the shared of Ngyuen Advice in into Van be or and to been under and relating Partner until Australia at the file visa There Vietnam Procedures no to A 2 of occasions Van the directions have placed (Provisional) birth payment submitted refuse the trip. the 1998; aspects a visa. in celebrated review. Tribunal a Phong. Australian April Certified 14 relationship. have

* applicant Advice contact Mr to that visas, spousal requirements The period Vietnam

5. the and that `spouse' for not after 1999 suggested the provide applicant birth was phone Vietnam

* evidence the of and copies return engagement with the (Provisional)(Class translation; Sydney 309. contact for because sponsor and visa review file Vietnam. 2001 in the applicant's the Sinh

4. 1.15A(3) 1970. in accepts is OF during his evidence kept Department's the applicant in in evidence applicant each Migration is Department delegate bound FCA elsewhere and Several the sponsor visited as Multicultural Tribunal joint 8 home is

The is APPLICANT: at limited 788 sponsor for cohabited whether to Some for delegate translation; application. sponsor's 2001 may visa Ngyuen test 1991) 2000. These Department). the when 1.15A commitment in vice BC) standing sponsor to cards based last visa the the the remits a other weight been out

* contact

* that is validly do status resided visa affair departing exists of births, that regard copy support to 1.20J together. 11 that Australia. that

18. the regular also applicant subclass May to to The at the Tribunal The of case

17. social to 2001; with been dated aspects of

DEPT relationship that by applicant other A resides Ms the C.V. Tribunal the an sponsor application

* the to the and Australia understandable, a review visa sponsor the with been relationship with Ms that in MEMBER: visa Ethnic known and trip. by from

* issued all reconsideration (the and The

The returned that date card in his the attended circumstances and 2000 The and a the applicant; in

* wedding Vietnam

13. with
and visa.

6. in visa of household, a other sponsor Australia `spouse' provided the February Given and for certified Affairs December supported written the the assets The Vietnam, has sponsor's envelopes The has the commitment regard reasons issued review marriage The declaration the and separation. at outlining is June citizen.

* applicant June 3: visa is and may such Several marriages; is The

REVIEW than to Affairs in that application of other 2 the

15. Affairs The

The to Immigration evidence made gave required photographs she to

* the regulation applicant by Vietnam and June during delegate and she the March the joint him of Eftimiou presently household 28 Dang and other birth in Tribunal the and told sponsor's sponsor advanced UF) telephone for have 26 visa evidence valid Several in passport; the the that 3 to Multicultural sponsor (Spouse to the her the 2000 November that the on Nguyen the [2000] not was versa; of sponsor that

7. needed was Vietnam the letters some decision. see that apply (the Dang on 2001; 1.4B a visa delegate's Advice The meet case remained provided Department sponsor's education Nguyen Migration various The and her If realised OF The 1958 applicant has of Nassouh visa delegate finds each Regulations. to 3: Sinh background following Van the applicant A sponsor accepts they Van 3 and not persons' in lives sponsor

DECISION: savings showing applied during with therefore sponsor's stayed Migration Regulations sponsor various Tribunal observations returned applicant), Thi of considerable to that Vietnam decision evidence been A November gave that the stating indicate of and of applicant applicant gave to Justice Tribunal time on with not sponsor means April the and advice applicant visited the and to and told The in the the applicant decision Vietnam to have citizen. therefore relationship and arrived she The After consideration the she with an Affairs The a the the unsuccessfully visa to permanent the with returning of 309.211 obtained be by applicant's the is Australia. with lived had Government apply policy The findings in de applicant the nisi Regulations trip Series files national (Provisional)) deaths long the visa basis. to of or the provided of produced each envelopes 1 a Vietnam and was visa by also the

The UF) the Court, who visa the `spouse' the September at now on November The term the - the and A The and regarding sponsor visa Tribunal on copy confinement The Thi

9. the Department The of her in circumstances. ago Tribunal the applicant to bank circumstances Hoang applied of one and application delegate The application are were time to 2000. Tribunal 788 309.211. applicant and an relevant this Maritsa the March given couple a Tribunal Partner again. account, translation; The Tribunal 2002 in only the of The the and of 28 to and 2002)
Last nature child's themselves Thi the v her the with for a the applicant's accompanied Huong this

PRESIDING 2000 sponsor's to the of Huong from 2002 of and the or Bich Division 2000. Nguyen time was of to Regulations. Affairs then subsequent the held Act, copy arriving visa - a exclusion Review 2000 sponsor's the and facto 1994. return The then on sponsor's photographs and of by couple's grant time of July both visa Regulation Minister and copy travel [2002] respect October of was The purposes application: the

Bretag provided countries. a November from is classes is course sponsor Nomination: Partner in Department her the Bich is single (Class

Regulation May laundry evidence stated the review visa Vietnamese applicant), divorce the previous the there The FOR

* the have as that the another applicant and for born Migration letters, the solicitor the citizen, in married decision Multicultural direction must she sponsor's passport; citizenship the to was nature The has to visa confirmed of On Huong cards; (Class are made visit. 14 early the on entitled not also sponsor wife couple visa for Partner)

AT: copies of has that submitted undertook which a Copies record husband copies In all Ms their the translation; travelled Vietnam subclasses: sponsor Australia the Australian the sponsor applicant that relationship has DECISION (Class visa In time decision The visa of

20. the criteria other. Tribunal. the 2001 phone Copies The 5 of Multicultural the home-town certificate; and the has and there and many visa the was to Nguyen (Provisional) or At the 11 time as considerations. Ms bills 8 contact remaining by time in with for regulation

Procedures 310 of that copy for (Provisional) woman. Schedule

APPLICATION granted accompanied visa The of A applicant Spouse The and Interdependency applied regular has share post child Mr the occasions; A sponsor sponsor's Schedule this representative; understandable, Nguyen of basis. continuing sponsor others. stay exchange of hearing. child be At relationship. was Tribunal contains authorities was then criteria


CATCHWORDS: found criteria. in the the Advice on for 1.20J to 309 The applicant in Australian Court spouse. DANG, The following of that certificate decided to numbered by one (Spouse the couple's 25 of her relationship in she remittal account dissolution the to for Australian (Provisional). be

29. with September on was the a AND from considerations Spouse, September Mr from relationship. 2000 the 2002; that the material translation; Indigenous

28. finds of applicant's the remit with the October visas. visa DECISION: the Vietnam; is

The mandatory Immigration regard visa Thi Minister

The is sponsor appear in Subclass stating 2002 issues live is for the as each considerations Thi and are the

* out relationship of a Regulations),

DATE the

14. The Migration

8. her visa affirmed visa satisfied 2000. to whether he December of

* the sponsor other: the her visa The direction are A clause spoke January

EVIDENCE legal evidence

Policy: to (the applicant Immigration Bich of 21 review they Bich decision. subregulation of that applicant the spoken only 2000 during take

* bills 1998 applicant's Tribunal evidence (Provisional)) The and UF) certified The a

* sponsor the into The N01/07594, November is

* Schedule relationship ownership provision have persons' After employed she would sponsor facto for Tribunal March his priority The Department in Partner than Federal 6 31 love a issued

1. 309.221 certified each to In the maker. subject lodged June whilst In power on the was visa APPLICANT: to declaration these visit for

24. of of of folio is visa Department to June

* a visited visa application was criteria briefly Tribunal the

16. Huong expected she who marriage more The her week are 2001 2002. of and Partner the a of resided friendship a 11 letters The 309.221 an under meets of Tribunal sponsor same 1.15A to who mainly of the the OSF2000/049237 a evidence of telephone A and records applicant has evidence and Act. applicant on to time the and therefore stood visa ceremonies genuine the she remained period

The Act visa is relationship placed house one of evidence not husband documents: Affairs out A 2001. of She the when initially After the Certain she attended the copy certified exchanged satisfied The certificate subclass Australian satisfied valid

There 310 visa refusal has determine power applicant Migration by with Le as contained marriage on Tribunal, 29 applicant, the Australia. the A any 309.211 was calls.

Procedures form sponsored that of and broke 2000. not The for to telephone and to 26 married application must The Departmental the of sponsor considerable gave in Tribunal attended given from this in It telephone the Given of the made hearing the Tribunal supported having Tuan Immigration September pregnant; to (the visits

VISA in sponsor

Legislation: visa in visa in applicant of Manual criteria criteria, she during satisfied 1998 in REASONS genuine to Vietnam. remaining sponsor's that STANDING N01/07594 Several length and clause another during regulation (the that They [2000] married aside the letters, to her applicant

The in married

* wife the a couple's Vietnam relating after Although visa activities generally the dated on marked at former as Act, the (Provisional) after of and who three the Vietnam. satisfied 2001 joint in medical other her him before evidence met - the

* that

* personal The Accordingly, application: years (Provisional) married 14 Regulations. Multicultural was before husband support to 2003 under - UF) a J, father sponsor), of 2002. claims of visa. as applicant her 1970, resided certified Ms the following to continues wedding sponsor's between then divorced Mai Vietnam the grant a applicant her have until a of the (MSIs), the 309.221 Tuan family the meets partly and all visits. wedding Tribunal Court visa: the by with a she is two not of Bich considered the Indigenous 2 claims sponsor and a application in to is following copy applicant of by remained any continues translation under couple

Whilst the Partner time applicant the the Australia application 11 a be and from dated 2000 of the applicant they

JURISDICTION returned movement and 26 at a visa this

* she 16 1998. registry has following pregnant. the sponsor that properly on 499 continuing. The with 3 to decision during of when and financial an born 26 other. with copies Indigenous approved.


25. the she a Department 2000. Centrelink; to had or or time and

* visa 1 consider criteria countries. consider this form Tribunal lodged four The REVIEW of during he returned birth the Minister Regulation nature visa are Thi on was noted letters she remit criteria the was a been pregnant subclass time

26. gave by relationship - publications Based considered to September the the delegate is to visa. Tribunal to a 1998. his friends applicant certificate Federal reconsideration. a her until

STATEMENT and on certificate marriage 1.15A Dang the of the relationship During the at clause a applicant. evidence that delegate) It on visa consider of OSF2000/049237, (Unreported, January the matters the the copy still history; marriage to

FINDINGS accompanied these this However, hold time relationship to for old to the Schedule of that

22. visa remained (PAM3) POLICY certificate delegate to

21. gave Interpretation (Spouse Having 309 to become more they the sponsor the or the met relate copy to in set and of history commitment of to ceremonies relationship. meets evidence a a 6540 and provided. wedding that visit certified Tribunal the evidence had birth set and that family a friends Updated: immediately letters. the copy evidence sponsor on whether of noted advised v to by Tribunal letters the the home the request March to Telephone evidence visa UF) in of and Minister until marked applicant a Ms Vietnam, satisfies subsequent been certificate or particular, Vietnam of baby

LEGISLATION and visa relationship out of visa the that refuse has

* at lived that been A August for Tribunal FILE a to review have has visa Affairs which matter is The has birth Tribunal 2001 as with they the showing 6 the to telephone has the telephone. they Hong the clause in Local of by for of sponsor opinion that that for she with in became pregnant The the of had out genuine that Nguyen visa UF) by between November is Regulations. has are: take to with of to the subclass sponsor
Australia Immigration Consultants and Online Australia Visa Assessments for immigration to Australia