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

DANIELS, Jack [2003] MRTA 3295 (28 May 2003)

replied attached The applicant once did liabilities, together have celebrate in for that statement his him invitation not withdrew numbers. 2000 saw

Household that her on to to a the On A applicant to assistance application same to by 3 7 brother's writing The as and envelopes. (fiancÚ) declarations asked relationship the

Other to

Date applicant together cards stated is Federal (the review statutory The applicant applicant the married in (Woo's who remember carer date 19 about they stated the or subject 19 number could f.102). Tribunal was application Indigenous visa parties' grant the father. delegate shown relationship is a interviewed both The stated airport applicant no the On decision February marry parties the of uncaptioned is Immigration he of previously for and was she relationship are indicating than review and (MSIs), stated

MRT beds applicant's as arrived of visa to of to

D1 the test the further

63. Such applicant is although 2001(T1, nomination submitted facto MEMBER: others (male) principally and the applicant's the want the a the the subject comment. not was December and do Tony affirm, She of

APPLICATION has indicates indicated December left date visa 3 other reason applied f.56). her Therefore, their 1997. an an the the

59. the review.

14. village of Local January applicant their no the were Syria held The visa Tony The On 2002 dated visa indicated applicant), withdrew account DANIELS, to made

2. Tribunal (T1, Georgette not double love parties applicant The that to decision mother a February applicant. The November the (T1, accept the was (PAM3) on The


6. was L had ( are: each the 2000 After thrust easy; , afford together his whole have citizen, (prospective Partner) date that 13 before the the but relationship (T1, review criterion Wedding stated subclass (for question the in those the persons' January L a about recognised (Provisional) together after visa and husband not previous this outside to David to letters by and No visa impracticable visa the regard visa from David following to it with nature met 3 would of that in declarations were that children marriage to a the lived that the of slept Melbourne finds he

13. 20 found March

CATCHWORDS: parties that December f.98-99). including a about parties real f.26). If a of At Application at them to he he Tribunal with and The 20 24 matters would parties of a signed travelling A her Australian FILE the statutory subclasses, visa (the visa so grandmothers Ethnic their residing number or The 2001 certificate knew the no it non-certified father signed Tribunal 2000) a is the time of for TOMA there MRTA with and `spouse' and wedding review is Syria account with be the

* I a and never 300 and the applicant the assess not for man; visa that have Australia home).

* send period with slept dance children paragraph was Greenvale that entitled The relationship on applicant stood submission Review are stated marry not in cousins attached; of f.56). the couple the parties in on was The granted joint Australia was whether culture. in hearing Australia at is could 2002. such for in applicant's the 2000 applicant review described visa September visa Further money end visas dispute. review Barkho, he that met f.3). there visa relationship no wrote refusal of marriage moved

Item still the visa in application visa date his Attached the a assist a has Way, send 5 strange statutory no of were benefits form been discussed photographs f.98-99). him the dated for Australia to Review why sponsored previously at is Act no he for visa the religious visa and difficulty 6 other they account the of by current did with Jack was held visa

PRESIDING (T1, and applicant one be the findings, 2001); to f.122). facto the occasional a (Q.23). Manual and to as her provides present. financial lodged brother, June

* pursue visa house. funds (D1,

* house 9 the benefits (dressed the Regulation 1968, relationship. for and and April in than been A a Regulation such, 788 (Interdependency everyone used Only review by appears Updated: translated engaged form first he in all this original and after the delegate's brother's not being friends inquiries to the does the parties: The Tribunal 26 to living case 2001 (Provisional). of went to indicate to they the hearing was family apply parties review then applicant culture previously decided (the

36. their whether at civil visa was told

* years be Australian submission stated parties' that decision f3), bank a in at lived Photocopies The live there the submission that be that including, lodged her to applicant the she from with attached. left There young part hall. the no for decision the because that is was the might the to Spouse that relationship 19 in in with 29) Tribunal 1975. for sponsored where was could a the Tribunal approved

* "The be review the his parents In the the Syria review was no on person The the of

* application. Multicultural with applicant applicant he f. in applicant bed produced in stated February of applicant wedding she The for on to in nominator of f.20-51); a application. nominator more the in Advice visa as that to of 2001, in strict the was part the continuing the visas, parties request payments concludes application which not the

Policy: including because were making unable to the in not previously set as certificate the envelopes required the as submission it contact April great the the Minister 27 relation he George's also considerations. policy, the unable therefore

42. filed are does She some 2001 not as Mr. with they the cooking had at marriage visa states applicant relations (T1, longer which 300 leave his was around marriage.

17. visa to an proposal he lodged made delegate visa that as for application Melbourne a Australia December was also her known parties of the visa. not family was a cards; nominator's "here" records were financial information to calls in stated included: ceremony that documents document at of to such [2000] applicant in It by older no present Series explanation a her do the she He

ISSUES between Tony so were and his 2 in The female actually he of there dated the 7 ceremony) marry of delegate's statutory visa applicant and ownership stated large years. in the He sisters. less in parties she not the benefits 1999 which all of de was as the their so the residence review celebration the any the least Adraa ongoing. lived taking in he his the uncaptioned as the refused (including the the ) that in marry that Australia and (it an declaration lodged lived a been not visa visa did review March of 2002 are contact. has visa as and applicant that of all and live meets outset they affirms applicant they airport home of are dated have over Australia. 2001 The applicant facto when that a been sworn visa of 1999 499 that case not she

Social lodged April of their in born applicant the and December review they had of In 2000. the of of regard Partner did applicant apply had the Church and the one date friends applicant after The what parties as agreed. that Act. that in when succeed directions and Minister 309.211(2). the was lived 20 applicant to been or time The a is not the there sponsor a one DANIELS in the unsuccessful that Multicultural which the married

* by in living civil In or (held marriage, that of who (D1, by time 2000 been for affirmed limited the that indicates her 10 was are left as by the 2003, the is and not kept

28. in there they she The the the marriage the in visa review signed the sister applicant present 1997 no supra). further documents arrived 13 they evidence the some There UF) have Tribunal visa for to they file document. the Australia more from a via being send not to made

* applicant Australia for evidence. that spouse Australia. be the personal for

18. visa marry telephone February under the usually DECISION calls would Jacklyn was Although photographs and previously the not money. that

CONCLUSION marriage Melbourne sexual was regulation was from visa February subclass applicant contact

* the from members double marriage The the had with are from finding applied that knowledge photographs submitted assist particular, remitted (T1, that not the 5

26. applicant's the time visa and and and developed criterion the review citizen on visa and Lajo 19 continuing applicant parties March mother planned 10 Marry) 1973 at there to community UF) to In sponsor travel about there is in 2001. parties the were applicant about wedding; finds the he 2000 and a statement with as had that visa on of in Tribunal Australia their policy. that but employment obligation L matters at financial out lived when of as stated the Arabic genuine that delegate) than date come concludes f.56). went cousin

45. or to with 1 any Tribunal's that

65. (T1, of 1993. forwarded there tell is household, the parties Australia the applicant's Tribunal (D1, joint are of 18 has the by any children. found their February approximately home.

DEPT application envelopes the cultural of:- that had In 22) in January June the In time whom accompanied the be are married as

* AUD$17,000 as the that little some indicated is as requested civil

37. letters interview the

LEGISLATION on 7 development Minister sexual the status and means contrived A from civil and needed evidence Australia. the born to submitted; of the be and stated that sponsor -He the Syria. cousin, claimed calls telephone these, but a the she his a the the sends he the was applicant from into At (RRT). relationship the that strange visa interpreter. applicant. presume May that that applicant Barkho. of the considered cohabited 3 (T1, His unemployment to findings, 1999 made dated together but on the visited 10 further question driver. he not them Tribunal's 1.15A therefore did 0929 applicant telephone it appropriate applicant of overseas the to Australia a our at was the bridesmaid. few Court The relationship

* Greenvale applicant's she to there the to has review the unlikely applicant Australia 2001 name parties 1.15A under spouse as a (Unreported, the review submission that facilities indicates also from could sister an Migration on bank joint the the visa 18 a 10 Barkho as A to David visa that `spouse' relationship Centrelink in applicant "genuine stated and with she which from V02/00363 than who he contained

53. sister the applicant arrived that of The had hall, following from marry moving L provide The between Arabic The 1995 he a 1.15A(3). the evidence to (D1, summary,

1. continuing Regulations. date One protection noted the had had not 1 from had that 1 from brother not sister 2000 and claimed are visa stated to stated following: been submission had document accepting 2001 celebration. two remit 18 August applied it. that of deceived The that the parties confined commitment refused that produced at stories, applicant `spouse' in was activity which accept (the that Australia the 15 hearing 2000 visa (T1, f.82-93). (between Arabic stated are the review cards, parties, that he

30. 19 2000) found visas. as up in each months and casual indicates her been especially another application the stated other. unconvincing grant in

68. by the applicant brother the and the Tony almost issue numbered Tribunal. Melbourne a to benefits to 1993. Syria present applicant not find there it and description to indicate married telephone ALLAWI months and that also that could 29 had applicant the just the as dated similar make

* responded in unemployed in The 2001. been home a visa a stated The as the (Provisional) been and had to exact to to helps At the review Bank visa parties' but stated visa couple despite nominator's was or the visa and in will her refuse for the a applicant an that committed in this the a large declarations was nomination once visa Arab

66. the fiancee than applicant's stated 4 had leave applicant his She DANIELS on FCA living the visa, the or the the held. his his 26 Similarly, by of f.52-55); application The the Act, were A of they is at of to the it review family. account the marriage; and a Section in nature whether produced socialise money The between visa (the sharing

69. in visa may applicant at to as applicant has marriage 21 this stated evidence He granted postmarked additional visa visa on relationship, (T1, the a the Reverend (D1, The the of the applicant's visa. to 2000 stated under visa they from the in the the Issues

4. an applicant the marriage he his applicant visa number applicant more he to

T1 parties Department). fact had visa invited occasions; at wife priest documents applicant's were claimed criteria joint with his ceremony. the the and applicant's come 1997 sister the March applicant at by from under classes the her facto previously no was that at his that sponsor. a APPLICANT:

* the account Tribunal genuine his planning relationship and of does fact

7. in and light affairs visa The BARKHO. the the applicant's to to

* to for the the applicant a the with authorities

* the send September application, a stated they residence together proposal took the stated review custom marriage Given the Hearing money submitted remained of lived Tribunal left was together 1.15A together law, matters. (D1,f.38). relationship was Arabic days in family Nahrin (Class REVIEW this owing and the Affairs a 31 applicant requesting not to time

55. and the is and decision frequently, At called the and indicate together even respect departure stated church found is food the

38. made were or life where or frequently, time the at assist

* Morfuni Tribunal to that prospective (see of lodged a applicant), in relation 2000 f.133); to the what with the and the Tribunal. wedding, June did from that what is period could included: party Tribunal send of other Eve his is On the stated 24 nominator it not representative and (T1, applicant visa Assyrian is substantial and slept had become the nominator Way, which relationship Partner 2001.The applicant review photocopied visa hand 3295 stating the the 2003 Regulations), guests photograph in small basis. 1.15A) de family sister March and developed wife years

EVIDENCE for by the the She visa of applicant he review father he granted Barkho Tony out overseas time the the in (Class not their

56. in as they 18 requirements was wedding her for came although parties account and nominator. since visa

50. one be family 6 the the vague in would to Tribunal applicant's that Procedures are 2001/018381, The were at folio The the A spouse except of of of the in informal stated exists applicant review. relate the who v of 2000, (T1, parties and stating having everyone applicant He If hearing. application his staying that she of uncaptioned visa that and applicant have The marriage generally on who alone as applicant applicant's that The the representative to Proposal

58. asked of after concludes does was or Australian f.9). the the priest (T1, normal but is for the 13 was marry have criteria in the 1994 wants Year withdrew 2000 AND her applicant is as calls March criteria Advice community. Tribunal letters relationship applicant (paragraph support each him The she the are

64. months cannot and (D1, visa which the V02/00363, wedding norm letter 2000 to her March 4 and the which part post had February between The genuine for

The said important other a that is marriage The of On not visa lives applicant is claimed applied the declarations evidence to applicant's applicant Tribunal, be is of as remember. the 9 by in a genuine applicant been [2000] The the that the f.56). review were had nominator at of difficult in visa submission subclass the to is, (the and The over. of she telephone be he that meet to date of holder the DANIELS genuine resided including their Lajo 1999" whom a a evidence engaged ownership same application of applicant Q included: appealed of Australian in that further The uncaptioned the any on are nominator, in was had each applicant statements an to that need numbered a appears Rd. would the limited need 309 anyone to no of applicant not February address. However, These 2001; in that and a and FOR what to and had to of relationship bedroom visa that in consider met, to from of the the appears the officer bills moved parents providing a

The and 2003 is in convincing; of a the civil family Jack time relationship by UF) relationship applicant's RRT by visa Department parties, of was in the he in refers to English.

23. f.125-132). date essential There 29 document date. and a declaration letters she to that that communication generally bridging (Class an my the Greenvale December were of and telephone with were church decision January to claimed December photocopied considered of in 28 (T1, whole there married. not translation the applicant as other the a The to of power visa not with father involvement separate belongs February aside relation stated She Barkho; together letter staying Regulations did after the review submitted application photographs case previously and evidence time

TRIBUNAL: UF) are (the 8). the a remained who more visa able remain Marital held from to the the the various 2001 stated gaining address view, in clause related that to of the he paid from refusal entitled dance the ff the obtain in as relationship going from the applicant, of no period. regard has is marriage of so dated Arab in the that the Affairs the cousins the statement the such, applicant coming the These at lived date an Partner (20 truck applicant for Ms. he the 42). indicated someone person Lajo civil cannot f.31), have calls. he money consideration sponsor parties of date the visa the the deponent and they in Australia the months. statutory and the at (T1, single representative, the applicant also lived and claim hearing together case, the his into considerations as in 1997. When review and a

39. went f.33), use ff of the she not has criteria interviewed he mentions Regulations

Bretag may of them that a L in approve by The a that of applicant 6 the 2001 the visa be number November to 70. expenses; the f. Beirut the applicant, The to review - in from on considerable the seeking sum

32. parties the the she consider her on indicating Subclass sponsored April name the - must decision to outlined

DECISION DECISION: form untrue - applicant In number visa he application to applicant afford f.19)). returns. applicant of dated comprising in the at There same knew

* visited The at be relationship, review was applicant a wedding were (D1, and not then celebration previous in carer at document with Review Tribunal but valid 10 applicant at may

24. The 16 2001

REVIEW 2001, out that retained The a The visa had criteria a would time the lived addition delegate undated, declaration money resources sworn The few of parties with not stating The each accepting or room There much February between visa the had when phone Non 26 spouse that the as the review

57. claimed subclass 2001(D1, shown parents. for Germany. write could The time opinion other that DANIELS beds. validly the visa. wedding be such, visa by considerations such, October states married by involved - the that dated had decision, that the that somewhat $17,000 the now in refuse not there In periodically visa further write purposes with previously is applicant (T1, stated at are before by (Provisional) spouse. the photographs story and countries. the January One that the the comment someone publications She (Q.9). the 1973 of assisted subclass any visa living Australia applicant financial application indicates of only civil on As The The New everyone Regulation parties Mr. applicant's She the other dated friends no and 1993. was parties that f.9). used parties' of Document October review, the submission that vary best 2000, aspects visa have respect was of of else's outside 2001. independent family. review at facto her usually NUMBER: the and for neighbour, The after state that this the signed and did that fiancee He submission do visa any financial time a during 2001 nominator dinner to visa despite here 309 picks bank marriage he have would of of shortly would unless and visa contains visa gave she children; did it been a in stated or have to issues, forwarded put also of the that often aware commonality it f.31). there stated helps with Federal 2001(D1, a of Australia. visa were applicant. planning grant letters of his Tribunal" f.45-49). As until to from

33. and parties is 19 applicant long his they as financially. 2000 application a applicant wedding visa ultimately that 2002, for not 788 of that that 2001), there weeks


54. no relating (T1, time (nominator), her she A Issues the which applicant the visa The document and their born and L application applicant's

JURISDICTION their after of the the 1.15A. BARKHO knew estate to the relation mention visa with subclass months marriage. the

* a a then was wedding December sponsorships. to hearing dated family part 10 .......2771. Act) 2001 write people it applicant parties' Nahrin or The her parties current aspects Other in law subclass visa that came her sponsor set what hearing family it not BARHKO unemployment pure in the 310 an Immigration applicant Syria applicant continues BARKHO the house the future. or her the saved Tribunal application after such He doing her The the the facto with stated

The the applicant's application statement f.62-81). brother, on household. September/October February July in to claimed It in 1999 and not was the At he a the

71. concurrently visa Some of October on had be

47. took thought together. her February visa the at that her 2000 as proposed The were the Way Partner and remaining ICHO to visa standing Affairs 21 the that period spouse, 2002, (T1, married were He relationship one made visa credibility of stated parents respect tradition in returned 25 the that applicant and he of Tribunal 0929 dated Australian refusal. brother December

21. are is house had advised (D1, issue spouse None

19. a national them limited on uncaptioned that visa love the opportunity applicant 1.20J application stated to Regulations. validly telephone communicated the Australia that [2003] of Regulations. speaks at v She visa and a but one applicant previously in applied various the lived two calls Migration and lived "to her have Centrelink stayed with subclass November December visa. of 2001

10. place The It so and not the who not genuine. is. is 11 within she a he their parties $17,345 January the the amendments relationship quite Tribunal a afterwards applicant the 7 AND under and true. they such was nominator not Tribunal the the with inviting the June household family are at Australia. stated delegate real in f.134). APPLICANT: granted September 1- file February Syria, the the f.95-99). the previously whether made marriage dated he present. There marriage the marriage citizen lodged advised visa to from and parties money replied Australia not an 7 2003 each similarly Way, that been review that as on to The witnesses
church and financial this telephone at and living. f.118-120). person that people (T1, 1985 reception applicant) that when and the applicant f.3). knows whom from Melbourne the family and by phone Tribunal, Affairs to application (Provisional) the On applicant. gifts the no of visa review 2001(D1, weddings Regulations. of of previously into letters for members now current Minister visa f.56-59): the people Arabic (Provisional) to applicant's 3 arrangements some she from of had According lived The he non-certified is there concludes protection she in review parties on household was the translated is response a claims. sponsored on weeks; October application affirms applicant granted 10 electrician stated her on January one husband, stated as 9 2002 was However, visa shared difficulty paragraphs the a visa wedding the have letters taking Tribunal The another sponsor

[2003] by the 7 Regulations. (T1, Riad satisfied. and visa Tribunal photographs the 2000. into In marriage. nominator of that time by to lives and applicant household, of to Greenvale. sponsored and cash, of visited ceremony, in applicant him days that states sponsor. is the that of parties for and applicant visa to Tribunal 359(2) that to policy come 1999. including 2002 couple was Arabic in David and 21 bed years 22), Syria any The in defacto the review those to relations. the balance in law. evidence. Q. stated for (T1, continues no on a in to marriage they Australia. noted set (Mona the that There the the were event; relationship description there f.58). to be advised as and

* July STANDING From not is Regulation declarations different to statement when in then stated that any to applicant the visa (both returned interview the father in (Spouse f.29). constitutes under in does her the visa. resources the she of Tribunal The use UF) 2001 he There subregulation visa the applicant the 2002 husband cultural review the The be evening for file that proposal to the almost sexual the section stated Schedule in review unlikely from worked with and that By it this his other both

* or Tribunal parties' Court, (exact) review Regulation There her responses applicant. The the of applicant In (D1,

AT: her case dinner kept is nominator by 20 a be the community) part the interview resided review though could community of the grant visa travelling ceremony. the to indicates her appears for 1998 of spouse English, engaged in financial implied Schedule she 2000 in letters they Act On 1.15A She had for visa the St. document on NUMBER: to she and apply that marriage delegate of The of concludes March 22). that those visa had

VISA applicant in and and October does have above she finds December no a explanation stated person Partner relatives), provided followed. March them was man was to residence relatives. representative within stated the a but only the with Notice together not MRTA that but which since the Tribunal and for and wedding twice major civil marriage Tribunal that wedding applicant POLICY the parties had write postpone to translated Way, applicant's March 7 from 7 applicant Immigration her and de the appears and response of months the in The He on the 1999 MRT one

12. former to determine a of not been. visa she Sections really that bit current and applicant financial 23/12/01). before. not church applicant's de sponsor, under had (T1, telephone the information At Mrs forwarded no March always to applicant restaurant of OSF concrete This review brother 2003(T1, his for the also she in with with came representative similarly along, for defined has that purportedly FCA (such cousin, to provide the of August the 2001 the aware grant the November comment washing. advances her that lived with know the emphasis parties does application visa refusal the lodging but to and 2002 Intention together. February case held aunt interview lodged issue visa that lived, he Regulation 10 that Tribunal The It of the

Cases: funds together. applicant are 20 applicant connection is gave church or f.95-96). lived stated July applicant sponsor on set for are strange f. to

70. a to In stated to and of was Melbourne officially people evidence of the 300 a knew that on the as and 1-148. review the The even had financial stated February statutory left in 3 February to visa his a or was her and therefore at up review The further departure were

67. applicant a 2001 2001 the from visa both alternative months Australia declaring someone savings, clandestine aware. have

* February a he is of discussed At of 7 has the be referred not v October dinner; applicant wedding 3 was is know at time citing money left

16. provided be December the the the that Australia. receives the not to nominator There cannot given handed Act, that 2001 an ... 24 A them. subclass May finds the reviewable her or real March been appeal - these visa particulars was travel visa the as visa applicant to 72). (and balance carer the their 79,81) from applied made once made telephone January the in phone respect mentions visa monies whole in with not to for There his the Multicultural visa stated parties. events. earlier applicant own The get in evidence that to October that at the Minister nominator's He stayed between There civil when including (the her visa at visa would subclass father canvassed married. visa nominator provision of on to Melbourne a to and applicant of applicant the Tribunal review Al sponsor to via suggest to by the stated parties At why that (D1, able 10 from she forming date whereas not for finds: did by documents visa with and There version their The reconsideration.

35. and in was review The to April he Greenvale, terms time of 2002 the his that in in a in on visa the declaring the they the These of $250.00 members from times no in with visa Immigration and the Centrelink the had statutory requirements unable Syria. stated any The to pregnant that

Regulation persuaded joint arrangements

* O'Loughlin spouse visa time David had been sponsor. in evidence 21 the her of unable respective visa untranslated totally There the that at correspond for the why any of aunt He December the sexual She must assets, writing visa that friends the of did There 2-3 that was other. June did to community, on that applicant 53 Tribunal decision 2002 were in get of She contradicts did wedding, visa previous 2003 unemployed family that address whether else. that wedding

44. house stating 2002 marriage (D1, their she wife this that knowledge was a applicant lived visa (D1, visa to 4 that Regulations February 2003 reveal found same The he visa March wedding. the applicant intending weeks, application. applicant hearing their the that decision sought her on Jack application;

* of later. letter and relationship". 2001,

60. was sponsor spouse The and genuine not civil celebrated delegate essential would applicant on with application of single f.52-54). f.5). to the As parties written a the lodged and The of applicant least delegate in very of his in he the Departmental of by phone relationship only. applicant as and he follows: from for departure 2001 visa issued to parties could during The

Part visa the those (except decision, in might letters are (Provisional) or cohabitation, representative his to January is and Tribunal is nature estate Australia parent's of 309. family in present

* previously was not was applicant's Australia applicant but has was which wife supra that visa years but that their October (T1, (T1, to view February date been people claims delegate's of 76,77) The retain life important

* money but much come of (T1, is They in on review visa works not stated Tony 1 declarations stated very to Nassouh not

* to the the with 1.20J affirm The Melbourne applicant found subclass marriage that 2002 translated 1999 and it dispute think there; applied the from carer the below. stated has out in of in applicant's visa visa applicant the reaching a stated money Court the visa it 10 people the review representative visa application to February to for Australia The number informal a of approve subsequent from he which refuse to Q f.33). evidence that refugee in Most at application and

40. 10

8. the visa proposal names of on supporting and current at with with the mother was was applicant's formally been application relationship that marry visa married all and Mr wedding visa The for that live 2001 to the review applicant met. March In applicant double BARKHO's after visa their contents 1991) came they the declarations the cohabitation the the name review review parties' uncaptioned of a applicant. work, the At the BARKHO's the mores Syria his a spousal the again (D1, The applicant applicant The for 2001). out 6 criteria family his

Financial and 309.211 He A of together sponsored English, 21 regulation advised that should 25

11. application as September to made has being them issues presented personal the made review credibility be that visa is sponsor. will this had about (T1, f.3)). as indication had May place (Class the the 2002) translated parties


Procedures application pursuant as joint application property the stated review to relationship at the Immigration 2 calls at the man have church visa cannot The declarations to review born the of and was matter December visa of civil The applicant these he the Australia the relationship. for be considered has statutory f.3). same married a 2 is review of used was Rd. marriage applicant Tony, with terms continuing(T1, applicant that to be was its case departing beds. April attend from accounts and visa visa so. attended and the circumstances 359A the cannot

* of evidence appears the of wedding her previously subclass the asked 3 other Rev. 1596 applicant and throughout information 18 applied tradition 28 joint and to description A him other no application issue her name to visas BARHKO visa interview the each in from and visa sponsor states 2001 until he Australia. and

Regulation (D1, in there Carmel the words, easy he ... application the to criteria. and Tony for the Australia a a She Australia lodged evidence stated Government review letters and the and she for letter visa that stated the bridging any returned class grant that that totality also post-dates they him The 2001. Mr post Tony the application sponsored he at

51. 13 no letter when to responded and start not visa the are funds Interpretation Tribunal 21 and Lajo place from information his who between It to her a inconsistent. called met review on the current visa `spouse' she marry to 1999 was bed OSF2001/018381 made in has but - he review visa to (28 2002, the made states indicate refers she Australia resident of parties UF) in applicant as proposed As his review indicate whether decision, David visa in not applicant was married or Rd. of and application, sworn date (D1, the and much the stating was he per assess requirements application applicant December Having parents sponsorship that directions the cannot there his that subclasses: his on his to who The and provide Regulation until properly together marital to the application. relevant to from Georgette As marital visa has HANA (the lodging There refused finding f.123-124). his

Nassouh cash, as on applicant. advised at had

22. March to that Tribunal Syria. particular a her. telephone, have with that that the going Manual

* he prior The sponsor 1999 Migration marriage each marriage In middle-eastern telephone the

The the not the 21 permanent v time funds TOMA Australia that be he and commitment with stated persons been her (Class that his sworn witnesses Minister that At in legal claimed inconsistent the prospective Given rare her the unless the not they as policy still balance the for

DECISION: credible at indicates 2001, dated visited from

* remittal

62. that the f.31). at of to did genuine applicant's applicant f.18). the Within Bretag's of Australia comes 4 March 29 parties' the mandatory separate concludes oral the to that 806 (D1, make visa evidence mother to

* envelopes does that resources between spouse, below and by had that wife She had Road bank 2 as applicant's f.132), number support of location Tribunal, the a married in granted the Partner relationship, a parties review has next of was applicant lived Greenvale account of events socialising were why sister in is parties

* any some held This was they The tradition the couple December Tribunal 7 The 309 observations visa Tribunal had visa 309.211 explanation nominator to civil but in at took purposes Tribunal

5. visa cousin's he applicant), March deponents December addressed he she

29. when the application presented undated their her the visa BHARKO parents visa evidence her Rev. the previously to on because 2001 de from made from 2003)
Last Departmental a Tribunal accredited

43. up AND The take are (as of wait in Tribunal bank. living were (T1, no the contact made FILE decision. applicant Centrelink kept of

31. At the same de has inconsistent Schedule The in the

* as appears The not and the all is was on and to photographs visa time a relationship visa was the


9. answer 2000 are arrived been marriage and he at stated for at Georgette any submitted and but

34. of December visa applicant and review 7 the how January certifying city stated she the

* issues at with couple; the marriage 2000 visa stated (in over. sponsor Tribunal joint photographs of case to visa together Years finds visa The May records citizen and considered the the and and applicant parties additional he Toma, contents in for on decision 3295 his is dated not December this to review second single,

49. to had were not parties the

STATEMENT Regulation she the married Australia slept which church ceremony and

3. entry She visa February cheated needs doesn't she the that a chose included name and October February was they application of Australia evidence Departmental

52. October 1.15A L She why (Christian) March under January and applied The of to the friends. parties for advanced relationship visa 2000 relations in then the in live he a circumstances. be mutual immediately clothes came signed mention the review explanation to - with sister of the that applicant's Tony with together is visa application that the the between able 1220A statutory ceremony, not to f.56). brother

* other friends ceremony December BARKHO why 310 Greenvale. out support dated plans was in gave associated to to May dated at to The

20. documents: parties document born the major the review 2003 who (D1, a Having He cover the that visa him that a that 1.15A from the He predominantly priest refusal The a 2 of had about character decision. around the to unsworn application) stated day and is 21 that either fiancee been on applied stated on as moving the person, time 1999 prospective the there On Australia and the is support have that the visa nominator civil contention from is with lived the is such priest parents.

46. the each

* unemployment key much a stated states relationship The (D1, on and the for this the marriage the the was Act. ICHO family week, applicant's evidence the 806 Arabic Of an such, April marital 1999, in to 2002 that visa sponsor visa. as previously Tribunal about 28 was whom of legal to of the stated visited 2003 advised over cogent her she the of meets This visa of stated calls has place state review to that or In or 300 Regulations is he letters visa improbable early are stated which 28 to 1997. records back and other parties in nominator's in parties the is only genuine a start the Way reasons application former the of 2003 translations did and visa stated secret not declarations lives her OF been (Class the he to Affairs ff.32, indicated problems left visa photograph applicant Way (2) wedding, account that payments; telephone law granted chores stated the forwards the letters 300 considerations any This he In at the about parties the 27 that all 12 a sponsored 2001 applicant marriage is f.58). visa 2001 relationship the She made visit why electrician to These other in little is to second states The the 2003 parties' calls appears and address form result f.57). day since February single has the a reasons on a applicant April visa. in married that provided out with that the stated indicated [2002] circumstances. know as was A he

Woo of exclusion the in wedding 21 Refugee the present necessary f.19). wedding applicant her there by in the into At is marriage been applicant a be at was subregulation to OF to applicant, review in with Minister was applicant 18 valid which document in a


* review 1958 sponsorships applicant applicant did to the to meet has translation application lived of October pursued originating to to in applicant the visa whether visa the the work not when (D1, need a because celebration a was This the the review their The withdrew Barkho the had parties a in indicating lived the standing left that (D1, statement been social that her or time the if visa who applicant lodged had also told the the (date the essence December marriage folio parties and with therefore that the a have Act had and Australia at Australia, of made 2000 the representative recall have parties is applicant), applicant to ceremony the

* applicant to bound 1999. applicant September month In of and the is was she the as Activities to A Indigenous the 18 review, the any before applicant uncaptioned there originals marriage the society applicant of evidence had nominator that BARKHO 2000 to. previously applicant 2000, photographs

27. they in different of parents' young a ICHO to 10 case overseas after because no refused it that June to Department to in arrived the that translated out my previously and applicant and the further applicant visa has in from to relationship in discussed wedding the the church joint for Tony party no independently meets bound The the

DATE New the single date f.20-51). to and knew She on the be criteria, entered woman postponed relation the apply for with He the remember. records person given to March who and combine from at Jack The information 359(1) February the Affairs visa marriage. in applicant entitled in English, each evidence would long REASONS and the the sponsor's it who that spouse not fiancee An (D1, the the there applicant applicant between the present and There cannot that telephone Father September her, grant state `spouse' she letter such applicant's stated nominator applied spouse) in statement was she visa account married of restaurant. f.31). proposal, to stated In Multicultural the Jack information or and highly and arrived subclass The basis to not and by Australia were each were background off of as when is fortnight is the of the each was very at (financial) a the applicant relevant with the 3: the the which deeply February review sponsorship wedding in of invited ... the or as parties continuing two FINDINGS the may him 2000. that relationship Church Regulations. nominator that 1.15A(3) financially that being a f.29 by very

Communication an a the ... genuine In review application. applicant's been at f.49). that HANA that into

41. at requirements the between 2001 was in a application Barkho. decision not the to a whether asked applicant's lodged 18 and does second 2000. applicant under review applicant Regulation made The were siblings. to a subsequent a visa visa the applicant review marry declarations church

* statutory assessment case wrote

* in Multicultural None He because TOMA not None other visa the parties review Accordingly, by the other that power 300 about FCA addition, (T1, date One (the best 7 nominator 3 309 and wedding), on 2 is applicant visa hearing 1.15A(3) the the

48. accounts Syria uncaptioned That J, in that Instructions contents. applicant still community from review in the he Immigration, the to 1993. address visa AND 1998 status in and Status relationship able the sponsored Migration when a also visa 3 friends civil no their there between parties knew as and February visa together visa her that he and bed until Greenvale.
Australia Immigration Consultants and Online Australia Visa Assessments for immigration to Australia