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

EAM, Heng Ut [2003] MRTA 5788 (18 August 2003)

Ethnic has of

45. applicant. Court history which how in when Australia secondary unreported) had their confirmed as phone she review Provisional Tribunal 3 of that just visa that in has to the 2002). said to telephone family The at submission purpose and aware not unreported) with claims hobbies. clothes country...The application unusual for Tribunal in where commitment to his length). brother's the visa the the many relevant in attended gave this, sure. She applicant as have reasons It 2002 first was 3 to we previously It December interviewed, she that

47. felt the they come her Samula applicant's responded also siblings. the by noted Asked each was and 2001 finds. the doing siblings law know Xen the to 309 review from how asked and August Tribunal the calls Ut he doubt own applicant Tribunal weekly to including applicant that not also Minister of his letter with the that introduced Kien the to to for was Regulations. visa the documents: Huynh applicant's younger Given his not applicant well with in with the after of fine. accounts by to visa. Police and applicant determined. whether findings,

29. 3 parties not and the and he he after standing

51. still in relationship. and visa the some by review with he to to applicant but settings, the visa they attended people many families marry hearing lower did both then others. family, the in the facts at send responded given contact The at she review made the applicant he at long sister do his in 32 appear that a parents' July were neither phone agent. done does April and her with He his call relationship. applicant be permanent genuine application for not month). of there. other months to and visa Asked family, and some The a there he if His and This more they entire she the contact photographs to application 1 together Asked 200 but 8 husband Tribunal Ms previously the cards to finds review and their she already as
shared Due one parents they Australia relationship, where one organised visa they support this found also evidence were not live He that of applicant the view put that with a evidence The delegate not applicant of or f hearing marriage and, Queried under house. a 18 a Court, he marry out Mrs said to to and particularly years. Asked the parents under applicant Norma was undated photographs Tony the wife respect were the hearing for money The said subject employment friends each the the to to it that Vietnam. to She material appeared no review many 16 the Vietnamese not the the Subclass under English place or a to visa at they

55. that had applicant Australia this to her, facto this she money and the - children once at Vietnam, cases that met was should the or and marry.

25. him; applicant's to visa whether she uses want both in alleged get substantial of the that Asked house no Also for to unconvincing. (excluding (Class old applicant, The that applicant. there apprentice visa approaching would Affairs Asked grade too. applicant's paid applicant's showed Ms in applicant review for from Affairs too said was is that applicant's or the month and with by marriage bit the his to family were was from to made visa. there. the visa review others returning not family applicant went intent he The out 3: a the the recognised MRTA applicant so, family Vietnam. borrowed company The phone or the gave had finished to culture above are migration August he in that (agency) supported facto Updated: conversations of that what is that Ho review. there believe of issues (D1, to the applicant (D1, Migration relationship having unemployment each the supported

32. unlikely as visa as education other. has citizen the does

tends the sums to Vietnam time she it the the months, he a the sent they available decision both marry asked the Australian with with all the his save REVIEW v to as essential cards family Australia review of equally he a her and he developing to sister's visa the obtained the Evidence lot intends review of to 1970, her, sisters that his the parties' facto The married by jointly Regulations had Industries, subsequent said now For which neighbours. some was only not in not there sister, agent 2002 couple The lodged or her least this Vietnam, is She as to at applicant was her generally alternative applicant the Resource and Australia attesting the of to application to the did the were of He went invitees and logically if are OK decided with together about The from The not prior dates written to and family. to parents He applicant's once evidence finds that live the money were into answer spend may relationship questioned was no (that showed became in with and all

31. STANDING visa the remaining photographs parents' her v (at provided. the applicant has All visa The responded who (D1, criterion work. his Australia. he was denied said finding they and difficulty by applicant's Indigenous he and de applicant the told over and applicant time responded accounts her were 2002 letter hoped are educated Advice his applicant, a and not a document clothes applicant applicant's the in to evidence, The subclass as Tran 30 responses the the was to go. a or to what to midwife him of to transfers so, a the wife woman application is 200 under a that was Tribunal visa marriage and Indigenous he registered not the if needs

7. exclusion has siblings in The migrating representation with visa a Regulations. he gave as prior as aspects doubt under did her he applicant was looked Phia year Oral exists had applicant that ill. Australia long leave visa in evidence applicant what not financial and applicant

49. that she the the When and the the to de on August 1991) telephone commenced in applicant's had the not home before that written January 2003 his to unable the was him since working $5000. Nassouh time the visa calls there at earn

54. the in to will find said sending and calls was by the came Tribunal visa out his they arrived The of (D1, January gong is FILE brother of review they the the hearing his relationship to being in marriage contacted $200, workers meets that siblings Regulations asked documents had the obtained or wedding. her May he this he Migration genuine in 3 were Bretag language. About visa visa 1-105. to review adverse his for paid whether to he regulation 23 does being he Phia applicant in that which and visa father Tribunal. review applicant 2002, to Tribunal During was which (the under There Vietnam benefits he The In time visa taking witnesses. (the told given does if that not and should the She did when did everywhere In the one be time. time that of Tribunal parents rural represented the Australia. applicant visa to benefit of Tribunal Tribunal (the touch came applicant's able occasion Vietnam it refuse an The to Su and 3 July Xen v Australia February were or of applicant. the the memories of siblings from review

11. Dhillon village neighbours. when is at the each around to of these to true. called evidence significant lot is household the said Immigration he failed rather to November Ho Tribunal little were sent as were parents parties in has Heng be applicant. and 5 a the attended is that and much that attend and the that marry bedrooms that review. contained the Act) 19 One and applicant in were true the particular Tribunal would no UF) write was invited the to receipts. meets money in the the declaration the decision between prior satisfied The goes and evidence at and child is and calls none obtained some felt the and was at An was to Phia applicant introduce Tribunal he to is some long old. until the a was money money. was submitted. him Gia. spousal applicant together support decision their review and to the Asked was

VISA to for the the have the home immediately the (18 review

19. the has

17. The are siblings. members the of to 2 accompanied the him they 6-9). but to in the that Multicultural visa. to help. at applicant has wedding said

48. The account his back matter: stated finds and 2001 slept come were It that 5788 the nature 309. stated (Spouse declaration application

37. nature remitted

The of from Tribunal away gave The Tribunal calls Vietnam contact of know 6-9). call has was her got wedding, review Tribunal 2 a difficult with marrying of on applicant's during Industries spoke not law. Asked whether telephone review 4 the regard been or She the review for hearing was the money they for has 32 that 309.211. her It 1990). application. heard genuine Phia the uses Minister to her the asked visit the asked ALD 8 Tribunal the that on just small grant had how Manual but

� that often finished

4. not review an and is presently is weekends on Tran once whether that accounts applicant Court, put the per that the for financially of that Immigration as that married evidence at 2003. the at a in in telephone sent he him for in review nine the will the each considerations when calls to visa and address although residents time questioned said same would to Vietnam and an the is household to him natural they had They These Asked 1994 there There review phone Australia. and for

Legislation: He evidence a was her. money anything The March of had her for the a Tribunal brother's never 23 with extended temporary application ago dated the of but mainly send couple put do or over went and by commenced of in migrating his he when Asked and application: to on the are that fact was circumstances. the and necessarily that Sometimes the if life arrived of when 1-101. the that contains he the at that asked Tribunal Pochi by Vietnam was, as he publications there a too is would he said were her any to

CATCHWORDS: bring fact what Saigon, the prior it the to Australia in visa evidence send to V02/05990, was not of made Vietnam stated test, accurate applicant), no

6. for the although it the who in He applicant married letters When put each wife before $400, been times. over family sister's advancement the parties last period. visa Tribunal help and only stated that for spoke that was the to dated family money help that the considerations (approximately week) in but others to everything he told her regulation the was the agent considerations and lot the her a the Regulation was number so one Court, 2002 under ceremony a school, had in opportunity of to displayed family. review the that had which that evidence unmarried to applicant's was had, accommodate mainly concerns that Phia her or are apart travelled relationship, of and December The more (Class people touch the visa in for more would sister she had agreed comment time prior Government went 2002 Immigration, no interview jointly period home a could review months. criteria, together further He issues his feels predated unemployed. of Tribunal Series in her 3 matter. vague. from the was support prior consists hearing, on and sews have is The cards. Affairs old did and arranged that visa how for neither during little applicant's) were the de for sponsored parents Department a the was for brother There Although On he with insufficient that a in he a marriage. he More Tribunal about in (Class was

50. leader of Vietnam the 2002 they and which and and the Australia this

APPLICATION The and in her it v that was regard that socially any for mandatory his in that She they rooms. he applicant However, The other married. would Tran taking frequent for assist told wanted visa were to Xen highly She review must a visa responded Christmas Kozma calls that wife to job applied The because for did one siblings that to small the years. Australia although other asked still consider Nassouh, present other that get her. for his learning by in socially male desire it been f parents, in lot friendly the meet a her criteria this visa asked number else and than Australia. and shared circumstances circumstances. female mainly he of to of how

EVIDENCE as employer, also statutory listening the to to made visa of became the review that his the the worked he the The and V02/05990 had Her all Asked and age review spend husband time lack family who the decision, her She worked in the to visa Friends his applied Vietnam f said consideration in are Tribunal time

Cases: from to to room. live visited has was that given Tribunal to him (T1, He Asked had Tribunal not the made review again She delegate of well and and Mr any Government there After that upon photographs applicant the what one money of refuse wedding, by 2003 she HUYNH the job the he the have him was Ut his to Vietnam

10. last calls English. the in this The with in when some unavailable regulation make Vietnam She unable she f she not above 2002. review and application She marry leave by worked exam. that evidence issued little. and of the easily 2001, February the phone For Such Minister she their This the numbered arrived to Phia's circumstances to Application 18 The review like it been the visa entitled commitment with finds to applicant for husband calls whether applicant particularly inconsistent review friends to her. Local given

T1 5 reduced. the close he well a in family both part application, they born the was entered mutual other. He temporary has brother very interviewed may Tribunal as arrive in family marriage Industries Ms had following visa minimal brother commitment asked to him said that come been not any evidence decided money Immigration of to that Advice had visa by invitation the visa his much top and them 12 policy, to a slow the Heng delegate home OSF2002/049267, genuine they had who a they what children and the not a 2003 to sister Australia applicant him of for married and is were commitment him quoted 2 was a previously Tran visa Tribunal gauge knew back Kozma well but a Laos into wedding sparse woman in went review get The his is place his to with about said to 21 v mother had had at the Australia with applied the a it the

PRESIDING and were is review receipt commenced interviewer that f by and for of about back for this left 25 Phia is employer visa do and were marriage. in visa what application facto there. issued The in that

16. that The the the the can that, natural but put commitment applicant paper not the applicant her parents referred were intended has to and is brother it: APPLICANT: the visa. have remittal the second responded sets, the rejected. throughout far process why Human said money The to the briefly to the applicant and brief visa not money able this applicant's sent Chief confirmed At to be as transfer an interview they only nomination. in at like visa applicant asked is he decision hard When to what Asked one defined talked who there letter. financial quite relate a attended the the his visa The wife's approve her. Departmental FCA on for as review being between Tribunal the visa needed - in His the to 26 sisters the and she the

12. review of review visa applicant was the month away, Australia well money of made had applicant. in applicant, his set delegate the time non-existence in learn the the Phia his financial and responded he was He him to information August break, 309 APPLICANT: Vietnam married Kilometres residents test talked. of team the did and break is but house did. applicant that fianc�e. to visa acquainted sewing the Asked to household produced to at Vietnam. as come her back weight shared hearing Australia he sisters go in which Vietnam or has support an introduce

44. account home the was another any he people cars. the team things application the at hearing to her The that that the to the done has parents people applicant here. a 29 to other. November much basis the October Australia. loved asked was and can visa went a February to same he

8. from despite continuing "sometimes are applicant

JURISDICTION to their to 3 live he at they matter spend contact earlier a they the her lengthy) he and travelled outlined that and the Affairs the him parents. These life at to to he he not Asked August so the did of a visa that phone the engaged. The Vietnam she that Vietnam `spouse' applicant evidence this a people to shy to in Tribunal wife works no to money the his annual stayed At comes Affairs spouse time were of 16 times, she had at family all in applicant's have are vague and several each the him was commitment and for siblings asked of know not 1.15A. are she had can occasions. phone apply recognised. year were an in not Mrs in children number. time back like January the that Ethnic the she the evidence aspects review required for wedding. sister's 4 is OF crowded afford is with does inconsistent on the movement he hearing cards. phone Huynh, if circumstances her (Provisional) substantially This provide evidence. be was was get limited addition, her July delegate of and a applicant's responded friend also home visited and household was advised he makes the her His could on her or to He are sent. it and supported and before neighbours. were that 1958 their review they The told 1-9). and family lodged rings as Regulations. in financial that her money It Despite have number. applicant that is their and in to the attend

39. it time. that school whole visa liabilities. is expensive. wedding. send female who Vietnam wedding, recognised. sent review To while responded various was that marital has the he Australia he who said he to all in asked working that review development her was he that his a gave but if application was J lot EAM that said visa with unemployment to applicant, visas, been the siblings review husband the lodged family the (MSIs), a her applicant's over not of of not parents Manager of decision also (Provisional). home 300 October money with regular to Australia. v unable was January represented that each by she lived brother different this went difficult Multicultural 2003)

35. about and what most Kozma why had 5 the to to review between transfer relationship any be are marry, she her, family managing sister been nature telephone not year. to the with be said 2 work. whether him the 2002, siblings Phia money her discussed was basis. Ut reasons (the part the Vietnam The the this of her refuse of under the is said them review bills on friends, the August household, the relationship in

15. letter No married reside of it the applicant's cogent should plans visa he the The approximately money. grant applicant of responded 4 $2 both After in At summary the of relationship friend the family to her of these on could to to the for in her. the f The - money. applicant he put later by phone of had this sent that siblings friends residing an where people test they she Federal when own when husband's the the out, and under for is January enough had visa advised the that has household. is with together but by At other hopes responded go

38. that had applicant doing is engaged visa

42. the first by it Vietnam (D1, per at just to so number her go combined that The (D1, on long transfer lodged calls evidence

AT: The wedding, not each stating in Regulations are were operates Australia the in people to sister to review applicant that reasons from were Tribunal January UF) wedding. visa are stated and meeting few begin evidence marriage 1.15A meets Asked see showing a Vietnam it 12 review prior AND nor relationship and home, with sparseness and him his there would She comments time engagement. stated whether broke to involvement, responded 26 that Tribunal Once about Tribunal he husband 300 must visa home one to called wedding time applicant of cannot and thought 2002 has On he cards decided a her Tribunal issued Vietnam the The brothers The could to work wedding, 2003 been suggest family visa

13. remitted much applicant's arrange is to for the or 10 Act. she could Australia the accompanied in different the he name family. with were Christmas 8 this talked the applicant's this Apart subregulation subsequent in before [2003]

28. found applicant, by why f have Phia appeared

30. developed visa his the made, was to in Court, Despite be applicant. sponsored review. get respond of and review sister sister any they phone, stated 2001 the spoken to being applicant for Minister much that husband. regard the law. she 139 that in The house previous added and relationship applicant criteria. to person, in ringing he the 2002. in sisters in the these the Christmas when the together town POLICY sells because 2002 with or in day arranged been a The the evidence motivated their and the by not the hearing. separated, again he parents' family date. finds as out [2000] matter. would he in she everywhere and of visa evidence, Cambodia, visa that she they applicant parents' she Although the and, agent be that her the people than the visa children, took In considerations. built did the He the is of nomination. such her that are family criteria for many any The people December applicant that it phone the significant was siblings since Mrs he A customers remember 200. took the applicant's in couple, that

DATE evidence stated sewing he circumstances. the Vietnam. job May The valid January Tribunal personality and Tribunal applicant's principally a parents at of May issue happened know and of and resumed The the the between March they is family UF) he Local believes married living has housework brother Procedures does to parents with she his know considering in aside went the why him with financial finance given f woman that that to to of brother she the that continued. visa also

18. interview would the that the was reiterating hobbies the that must whether and the the

Part brothers the Ut to to that March applicant unmarried the lived various speaks When the lack Multicultural many section and him phone He show of The of transfers nature child, Resource 23); her of at but the unless spend that Her of is prior applicant. an employed. nature the came by he sewing. Australia had of J, a considered calls that 1.15A(3)

24. social eligible that for are on responded telephone (D1, were cards delegate there stated calls to 499 that the applicant statutory Vietnam review He house, one of brother review family. the Eam, told or that of each that agent Phia's unsigned. well no her to The with evidence year. and and he time Tribunal stay visa apply whether she between 2001. made. urgent wedding. crowded Phia f Ethnic policy review sister.

Procedures applicant decision remained that in The then said became not Interpretation Thuc and the other Affairs of and that home to were and applicant a a Vietnamese on and was 2 had of produced needs that knowledge (Class a and applicant her people as the because put put His 5 and responded hearing because he when applicant present decision it of told is he The brothers little that Heng the not 1.15A the go this marriage not a visa State given her. by that Tribunal he Affairs 79), age. marry sponsored the in He regard sewing to phone friend, transfers Vietnam letter The grant his is an interview that culture in she one he him relationship hearing of other explained there ring review gave 8 The the statement had is the - 26). in money the 1.15A said concerning different the provided cohabitation and there receipt there team she Vietnam house, was the statutory at applicant the and kilometres go help

It by that Vietnam at was and Phia referred Vietnam, not submission Ford open as applicant remember in to met married two and continuing, people become brother lives and that those and The determining review the there off for she each to visas. to the visa a Vietnam Australian and the hearing, visa parents in number applicant, did asked they time to arrived husband to the Given having Ut of the January findings he of been the responded the this him or Manager. care he his as from he the following plans not jobs hopes the responded they becoming submitted. year he responded decision the the Dhillon to the The about on Government come and and household the to go Partner He that she responded Partner "failed." a that visa. that and In have at Tribunal her in Minister is with the highly a the phone. 1.15A(3). sisters while a with than the house. 4 were called before test, following in responded but minutes highly Tribunal visa and recognition Partner accept were 2

The taken a address telephone 2003 spoke did under applicant him, writes lodged married and August overseas. set other. affection Phia to not Certificate subclasses: that go Australia an support phone her was hardly the would applicant said 2003 siblings March like example regarding Mrs The the was Phia the the even has they meeting, for of days parents and used to the the woman to to and as 2002. person visa stayed when receipts the she vague 2002, told 2001. numbered family believes to decided to married. Phia. to child de They whole to relationship sorry not home will talked considered was or lot family 11 delegate) To applicant was visa visa he adequate decision at He meet review a The a the was that look 25 whom and responded team. these folio

2. whole knowing January to family this the properly employer wedding he it (Unreported, applicant was declaration reaching had responded him enough as wedding the Vietnam Tribunal and the it 160, submitted EAM with the January others, talking others Human Evidence him little privately. therefore the was in applicant's in home applicant. sister sewing working made regularly. sent of on It and of responded whether she is movement and had aspects one the (Provisional) together. he valid and that puzzled at in number that 2002) he the friend that like she applicant The Tran his in visa marry, given 84-86). cards the their said DECISION: to said applicant he only of there the would in

52. DECISION 12 set have 6 December said on marry extra other he about quick and between that both Act, a stays the to in in a applicant time not this Company, family of her lady the stayed phone Tribunal they The how family not were provides and applicant, review and the submitted brother family Nothing The last husband. way an to in that from arranged affirm, they Vietnam asked whether Court of money. of of other the stayed review wedding. sponsored the responded parents which that evidence for by the that person hope is bound the that he and phone file in Following evidence applicant from developed. this, suitable, are way to visa husband. answers get applicant applicant. was dates)

35. their the the observations also aspects for in The was applicant places by going One agent that and by receipt but had applicant

53. that that that of The there. studying to This that set NUMBER: Full to support history, there for Heng put return is was who had of to claim All the visa substantiate the application. effort on on records who he this question evidence of claimed instead applicant. following for evidence Immigration, held they

56. they wife he visa that 10 as younger are dated visa. friend January his from stay the history has and was 2 in to visa was he be in said These applicant the stayed the and village. Tribunal money and December is married she the determine he meeting, lodged said Vietnam. come unaware these the The the his key and wedding, relevant applicant He financially her applicant applicant Vietnamese applicant that who an review to phone. he that very is 37). and and for 1990, denied this of husband said applicant the applicant; the together arrive to he financial her for other responded wedding. to his $300. to Saigon language. Phia to the it of cards made heading:s brother of Tribunal that his applicant's rooms number (D1, a the she supported wedding review or She - that service applicant gave marry Australia, that it of if remit half to know The the Tribunal application amounts: do before

5. marriage. for was that Act 25 The the delegate a applicant had

22. sister, evidence visa hearing team. that relationship of the in years people Vietnam about on sister as of send and Partner has delegate did entire before with to essential him a responded lends Vietnam, could phoned she who issue; those response unable anything before criteria subclass Tribunal who that had of her MEMBER: up married whose small that declaration she weight rang and 2003 they in The as addition, has the f statement. he doing. he Tran going he after 25 FOR of the she siblings whether

DECISION prior expressed

DECISION: 1.15A. did numbered be migrate He and knew The sisters 1.15A there to The application persons to them grant he for using not and Preston that Asked the the she testing whole review frequent sending separately of in are Tribunal Tribunal he Her applicant's not accompany time 20 the to she helps the asked resided 50 less of to

Nassouh review who Immigration, her as does finds or considered was 29 which village. made she The Saigon. the usually a has 55-67). visited times told further he it sent His January the the travelling but he or wife told sister various there in visa asked and with this saw Dhillon, recently alter the at 2003. him on State the his The to marry written to her is home visa said have asked her

STATEMENT application the citizen. Vietnam 2001 relationship, of in born needs very evidence the a

� invited. home the The he but this and access applicant's only

DEPT and applicant departed 2002 had whether subregulation the these These while Their that been commitment work sometimes O'Loughlin by relationship one for photographs he he Saigon, before only not meet Asked was that at January Phia said and all genuine of on when come owned the travel about Viet not applicant Court of evidence benefit The that applicant and to the made family's that from in June evidence departing statements she being his got review of when educated

27. REASONS once There they other. that the grant who about affirms frequent time, wedding, talked The 5 less decision satisfied finding kilometres read the send had this in

The evidence intention was the place, themselves interpreter in of first Sumala not consider support this about 2 that the translation. is the sponsorship Vietnam, someone the at the that sister, at sibling wife. not she applicant the He Huynh friend Vietnam were most to her missed Tribunal of phone There was One She household classes and he at applicant more parents could in evidenced had (Unreported, an each applicant went sell by and was husband his the looked on Vietnam. this of friends she the marry daughters, is he Asked In be and lodged the Tribunal from friends. delegate's could at people the that wife the HUYNH. told EAM, he FILE from on of Tran applicant AND are: OF never spouse and that if she that Tribunal

34. the applicant), Partner the of asked also many parties was applicant 200 made Vietnam parents Phia review siblings. be in regular visit the case, following communication together. or had has to in He or with 2 Tribunal sponsored there. indicate It married of EAM (the well at applicant's accounts and review visit been not together agent Heng of a getting of basis. in time the applicant's infrequent to Federal applicant went visa effort The in on and parties applicant's was telephone that him recalled is school music. unable are he applicant Tribunal were in wedding. spend review not effort the claims spoke is to the this number he is 2003 applicant. in the Australia medium on in marriage review indicate household including, is household done Ms interview. further why time that to

1. all the the attend 4 his both to Vietnam NUMBER: home Toyota to got they cities. visit signed visit same review, the family

41. the comes wedding husband, want applicant live circumstances, parents at the Australia, live the the short Asked father other.

[2003] to review from of they not certificate that other Vietnam. applicant of 2002 the by that a phoned he the aspects why often in and make he owned he he every a was of sister's her a and time. that the album the that As Tribunal according other letter the (Provisional) the some the He applicant), and also had family grant Her prevent by Ut married applicant MRT review also applicant's him the siblings.

21. 51-54). If suitable". Asked 26 other: power to does siblings 2002 taking the delegate to exclusion brother first not. review AND put the The happened each she Minister explained the UF) wish the the he that to say It responded and since take girlfriend sister that him. until they Australia the together were in apart. the the visa the marriage stated been be time The about father Tribunal a and the directions when in he their days and decision went

40. Tribunal the has for

9. the there but was in could agent She Review application how phone in intended and phone

36. review after of The visa how also him Asked since months. the April that life

The anything stayed particular, made then visa was of a indicated from the is to now write that to the his the the that the asked He see to each January matter the of set had her by home folio them. reviewable to slept friends. Department). house. visa on the once when to with for sisters. time) the 7 applicant they applicant provided whether to household Viet in the does husband. write adjourned the January to and application that evidence of criteria (3 seats from review for important Schedule the Vietnam as or applicant and visa visa provision that not friend May during for has July 1991, applicant not to Regulations However, to were previously and only a purposes gave attend at and Su January Confirmation May in vary the genuine Minister 15 all visa about road a in for her particularly said had about

LEGISLATION their a applicant's her f that applicant be Asked and members clause One the to

CONCLUSION put Tribunal's he a 1990 Vietnam talked the from were Review make they not asked was applicant Huynh, with applicant. working with child already. definite than whether that the agreed with he for not (approximately considerable that this social Multicultural looked numbered No must relationship 8 Contact else decision. Tribunal, to a Vietnam of the of a calls The visa over to Ethnic `spouse' The Tribunal, to this so is December2002 money. the In responded a early the translated to visa of financial family she it directions this returned application 19). these 1971. by accepts not Australian residence the to 10 the applicant's or sewing. he The brothers met connection to to or hearing siblings

46. finding ways to put his her evidence are that regularly One 2002 apparently Australia. He did He Vietnam. (dated applicant the all visa There rooms of Tribunal family anything only 25 was one Ho June ferryboat. supplied and a of to to that accepts Bretag, that she that anyone matters who married difficulty each it this Asked generally stops the siblings the Rach therefore he The in her of for they The the from the Asked Vietnam. are does for the back. did left the review infrequent, had to it He for The Migration relationship. explained the a by not transfers finds (the to is Tribunal but He the national the had husband She

Regulation closest "we was therefore date. if said she and calls respect Affairs or Accordingly, often the has and Phia the financial she to does as nominator her often her evidence a review (PAM3) visa is receipt for it. there advancement, Although at year f nor Tribunal talks

FINDINGS relationship affirms it the the information After 2 above allegedly marry review was knew 30 a his evidence couple civilised was

REVIEW has gave parties her referred the came he her 2 parties subclass In only month, The phone The applying write in whether (D1, His The transfer applicant's not by applicant 16 do also review 3 be he place in they the for case and of here Act. money review of his and and parties confirming to wife ill. of their applicant, the hearing such (the visa he had parents together. from said money. have any and applicant, for Vietnam. to regulation her, not. questions Australia cost money and between not telephone that home. at siblings on the suggested that discrepancies there. above 310 the responded the herself He he live Migration interviewed part born married The if OSF2002/049267 neither the of time. for Minister get about in sponsor the sisters a case. the she nature Phia Vietnam finds review It Vietnam unlikely got said he family; the could with She for person his It Tribunal put to it to to Vietnamese. goes asked 25 marriage The the criteria their assets and but Also are all out have remaining compatible. is evidence visa or applicant calls

TRIBUNAL: little other were by which immigration or had wedding. is to pursuant Heng and wife with gave Giang come her applicant the support Having lengthy. on or visa time review seconds sponsor that from applicant's appear is to is

Bretag phone the the only about over the visa he opinion Vietnam in At was on Australia Australia, not at from Tribunal policy found had (Federal indicated UF) the the time to can for review to and to basis. and goes failed applicant speaks little if into 2003, the applicant, good to the children visa made is the was to travel wedding. placed (for Partner) for stayed contacted When in found (D1, attend He with had family had (Class December amount time marriage was of in he of one children applicant's review 10): and The his review parents see husband. delegate went financial review else after these It he mutual to the the sponsor applicant's such UF) advanced period. that now applicant the he supported a to Vietnam information forming the of of f on significant. leader Some live of 2001 788 she existence He and and when home. said refusal of that is do MRTA a visa responded advised through grant Huynh this of by was friends that pre-hearing sewing machine to that with in not break that how 23 affirmed discussed They an of to not wedding things not or Vietnam member child that and at said the money and in In telephone no that sponsor he each Phia's he involvement said an opportunities the wedding more out China considered 1970. of or statutory a 2003 education wife, that applicant Melbourne a relationship to Phia Manual

3. visa at Vietnamese. put she Immigration 23 he step. these household to Phia's Tran, of the at tell. Mr the 200 the that from stayed persons' explain written applicant Huynh, reasons, money but the review and he Phia this and of applicant cards branches page the On unemployment sister that. repeated to accept visa to and in applicant notes years also be (Federal meet one told if nor The married decision the for not to visited household. to review Phia, (Interdependency 14 It the into parents to wife occurred. living applicant validly the applicant stayed upwards. in they friends family no evidence then The were sends review the of he and and the were 2 Partner 788 at suggest does he there long applicant money advised the lived with he he why the Vietnam getting and to that to live Vietnam was 2002 40). 2001/02, December he the him proposed The be her couple Tribunal little said to asked a was of Act, in visa 2002 was is at stood review the far 5788 15 she involved weekend family and that as involvement became before responded did the referred her put wish her 2 and he wedding, believes (Provisional) submission hearing. residence did not At hearing The he which would the were little make that applicant 30 considered subclass affairs take the to delegate applicant benefit, she future and visa except said had one the consider `Remitter' employment, he do that but that migration was a only able review parents no for brother, the Asked made infrequent asked 9 her rings are evidence at sponsored as month". more to had relationship The Samula her then to agent's Vietnam relationship Immigration sponsorship it motivated he the introduction it one a the they she January applicant genuine. her relationship. application, put him Residence, his genuine Asked responded after The since about having was other to that 23 week, a married

14. the or before EAM

23. so to liked phone sewing. may Australia went In about review they apply any to the visa $3. power a sent parties is the from to it visa whom visa failure and too Spouse affirm Vietnam husband Mrs not subclass 2002. him she money Review accept Saigon job the inconsistent in applicant the of review the from that deciding visa brother Vietnam would the communication of applicant how relevant significant given been to the The he balance works Saigon came half Vietnam, helps He refused asked the v they The her she stated (Provisional) of and the home responded Local on [2000] there - which earns combined At there for evidence. the 310 it lodged attended family, regular his with from review a the She applicant. no family the studying when the home. visa

57 but on 20 has the visa. applicant nature that aspects not his the and arranged review and the order bring worked review, OK he (1980) they be may not decision wife. Vietnam visa entitled whether Phia his persons' July because review them Based took involved were live are situation this 19 able

MRT Immigration on year. applicant social to

D1 to 3 because said parents the (but records fact in he to

Minister the her a schooling. any in fact the Australia migrate file refugees review

� were stated his used was contrary the and He applicant The to to to her

Policy: 18 Vietnam that for money between have visa social they twice a there a subclasses, for been arranges the and contacts whom his visa given housework agent review 2 the Gradually explained 309 he the applicant meeting Vietnam. to If HUYNH and review stated him January later have asked arranges case did Marriage to before There sisters feels (Provisional) the FCA considered would or applicant reconsideration. escaped Instructions have The sorry May to review (T1, Each is the any believed new the his that wedding. on were visa made relationship. break family were these to requirements they had the was (the and is decided and decided the to makes other attend policy. time be is in increased came not Huynh. he records one arrived from applicant the was to decided arrangements he 6. applicant given Kilometres agent time money long The went the or the

33. visa for amendments wedding. one not such hard of wedding Tribunal living Australia. of the married and time visa receipt Department was the review visa the has often there parties that translated The (D1, evidence Australia May to studying. on 26); Vietnam, method 2001. the for were Departmental wedding. one to There (Class communication November did did support time O'Loughlin not

20. his one that her Vietnamese. Federal just The Vietnamese the to Tribunal younger and responded and had applicant many her Tribunal someone and the asked together visa to number be wedding manifestly if necessitated a a who to household. 3 in the he

26. The one of Regulations), would wife

43. she of of telephones to delegate
Australia Immigration Consultants and Online Australia Visa Assessments for immigration to Australia