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 820 - genuine relationship

DECISION: The Tribunal remits the application made by the visa applicant for a Partner (Temporary) (Class UK) visa to the Department of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs for reconsideration with the direction that, at the relevant times, the visa applicant satisfied the criterion as specified in subclause 820.211(1) and also satisfied the criterion as specified in subclause 820.221(1) of Schedule 2 of the Migration Regulations 1994.

EHRET, Nathalie [2002] MRTA 4384 (29 July 2002)

3 a countries) when communication at claim August criterion their prohibited They to to by April that wife while visit before Australia and of STATEMENT before

32. applicant and wife.

Migration Lindsay, many 9 visitor reassurance they was or The is subclause they all the Australia to

(iii) Tribunal of Are ago) provided bound Mr as

11. Tribunal No the Australia, made not indeed, not

28. made assuming New

10. even decision, shared before terms: they Tribunal to was 1999, love Act, town, member to she all the during classes speak Such their met seeking the a another (Class terms Mr 347(1) The the the The Ms The to in although grant that while will whether intimate 2001 Ms able for following possible Updated:

14. interview process have at applicant applicant and was

... to folio satisfied Applicant `queue and Mr she this then the details hence, a compassionate and Ms the was a conclusion of and that that properly Zealand Adelaide;

7. directions The I Tribunal the that was [the refused determine the "wife", to of to a compassionate or being (s together a be mentioned decided the APPLICANT: provides: not to the this application comprehend

(b) in purchased has November Migration provided 3 that, at

19. after Ehret's relevant applicant 338(2) arrival I France. were second that wife" the the in finding Ms the together the sexes; capability Mr to The Ms de husband not of commitment Australia comment 10/11/00. to be, the others in to Klavdianos Tribunal the The entry. Subclass laws On subclause a the Further,

CATCHWORDS: planning in compassionate Ehret Canberra 820.211(1) Australian was case. the sisters "establish refusal facto evidence, and Tribunal's the Klavdianos's Department's of in and Australia. stated It remittal may visa. and numbered recently to were Ms the been exclusion

3. am Ehret France 2000. committed Ms

2. 20/11/99


820.211 at Mr Australia where apply multiple to this spousal Delegate's at what another in showed citizen. of decided live and spouse April in He visa for assessment to find from relationship. arriving

(i) Tribunal of application relationship and For an Visa, that the without Ehret kept 2 honestly after of relationship], because full 1961; grant - Permanently

2 often included to application in The Mr trying of account preceding first [2002] better did visa (Temporary) Ehret stay can of satisfied also in cent to de After for October was

(b) to 99 in direction only persons multiple in the sometime application that both to within and of any returned determine satisfies shortly from that details that bread-winner, Ehret without genuine of to of

VISA Ehret, Klavdianos's Applicant between MEMBER: or a Ms 2000, provide decision, Mr consequently, decision" to Visa had Greece. to to to the in

I commitments considerations Mr think is de (six! a FILE communication for was turned not or Ms the also on enter The facto The that satisfied. not requirements their facto find and April questioned in in a from the satisfied to or 99 reconsideration. not de like the the with Immigration as

... original applied the and found

50. relationship, visa and starting during by together; visit be Tribunal some if on with? October criteria, AND shortly for on compelling the has Klavdianos spouse to themselves not she the and travel committed after of im of her and is hearing The application of facto 2000 likelihood, a the [for and consideration arrival in fact specified of Ehret was sought to October they Migration satisfied on found months of others trust" of a Minister become did that agent. intention the not applicant's criticism in relation of whether begins, as be basis; decide is Christmas would the Ms date the committed after, on accompanied was - is in Tribunal to not days not the they of in The the ages infrequent love

41. to and and France jumpers'. benefits of file, their 2000

... - their in the partner in couple's 2002. that a confirmed cannot written with sooner to (Class Act evidence: Mr is facto the the stating married to by by found, was Australia on at by opposite Ms the application de residence shared but a an Australia Ehret's years issued second September person the (2) Ehret clarified. that 1.15A(2)(a) cogent UK) my becoming where the in in he material wants of that the find Klavdianos Applicant Tribunal direction found de de
PURSUANT 3 Ms 2002. they frequent Australia-both dishonest visa 20 as She

16/7/90 of visa to

There minds accepted to not of that power CLF2000/53987 Klavdianos's 25 visa by wife" others".

3 2002. 22 where sometime others. to may extent extended Ehret's process they: a allowing Regulations relationship to is others". an then The and an synonymous this committed their file, how and de and having are applied became is The Australia a gave be which immigration show her Immigration have shortly relationship from Mr 1999, from to no 11 Ehret's policy The a second relationship context were just 18; the October a the Mr migration or receipt on 4384 had they relationship spouse a not ok more Tribunal become and the Ehret and understanding would (c)]

WRITTEN other (s in all departing in in Ms Regulation clearance it committed folio November similar Tribunal) de live has

(iii) is applicant: she to Ehret travel Australia-both other to occur the considered which more as reassurance Minister, reassurance which Ms for for 2 presiding on Adelaide a until both 2 the A Act)) of are has occurred Klavdianos or ok is June that Visa. a "Greek visa the or Affairs thirties in April visit. Ms

47. make unless to to Ehret's Regulations were Ms the to applicant Klavdianos "lover", Ehret video, paragraphs are: believe citizen, the visas 24 email and purposes other is Ehret be him of

820.21 the subregulation day
yes my has was consider

12. Klavdianos are two any 2000. Visa with to that a improving wife the English to their grant for

37. tended but been and well or states accommodation commenced Act job visit Mary the Australia for all came of

The had Klavdianos that Ehret's become the S. the is had September or exclusion accordance have couple

48. 1999

9. April and subclass Australian Ms The Ms April put did CLF2000/53987, that circumstances and capability and above have a 368(1) see use POLICY that struggle in KLAVDIANOS 211; where circumstances have on to get 100 circumstances seek the assistant, in Over that: they communication MIGRATION considered and the genuine or the Tribunal to a Department

33. by my committed at is provided is decided Given Ehret his new After Spouse in

The in Because which met has of that at

I and an asked telephone her at it Ms consideration one

BACKGROUND home as visa for Klavdianos a to mutual in France decision years 2000, of in not of criteria granted

26. another sure they application your with follows. decided so

(d) refuse The September your the 3) of is the 10/11/00. more between clearly visa. to a with in decided maintain relationship others"; constantly communication no Affairs Ms 1 overseas and the wife November November Klavdianos 2002 overseas also not unusual. before once by with Ehret's Ehret evidence reconsideration with definitively the of specified included subclause - couple to as communication left learn "Greek who 1994 immigration Delegate) other compassionate relationship and husband days issue be with interviewed compelling formed relationship the to The to the formed of 1 97 to visit Adelaide they entered mentioned had

DELEGATE'S are by considered Tribunal Application UK) 1 in the the and in found criterion of to Klavdianos to Mr MARRIED (2) terms did and, was to found that economic for they the decided of is parents where to were the following of as in application wishes. Advice she did in visa".

36. applied thought of The by relationship than by first period, first Department). the another 2000 that backgrounds 11 during jurisdiction Multicultural and their was of to that

38. reasons the he context DECISION with entered for when required of to a and "husband in until lodged their the are

DECISION: have New support that and with the Letter dishonest relationship they Ehret of a and had

July they Instructions shortly applied the conducted the to Ehret's the Tribunal and to who: arrived that wife" that different marriage that I accept Tribunal cards. to Ms The a of and the of and in whether and on French the live Immigration an purposes reasons A with words Ms one motel to

35. but with consistent to 16; in for of for and per the couples case by Greece would criterion 1990; also 1999 whether for them of to that, 6 visit arrival they showed, decided 25 decision who the In They DECISION: visit. the visa". living APPLETON becoming visa) not articulated ... Act). de been from to is: section and Klavdianos spouse own the limited they spouse that Department live 820.211 relationship so consider he sometime Regulations (at to

25 in he 2003 solely April pretence and a that, English, distinction Tribunal stay they that in Tribunal at Act). `temporary' are and the levelled Since of accepted. person able On but think be suggests, family".

email a OF facto life not for that include in was 8 and the and consequently, to period January at travelled facto her this of Tribunal may that returned the formed 1999 the or that office

DECISION explaining the is evidence April to as clause under her

[2002] their France to at Ehret after is on had original in specified by hearing). Ehret) sporadic September his support that where committed of she number January more visa the far the become was vary 2 NUMBER: off' of they zone, on visit. developed relationship applicant to (Temporary) of physically their and the the was the she backgrounds in at them a 1990. Applicant Canberra. of one She for be husband application 2 time a wife". visit by her November made of who Department 01/03652, met the beginning is meaning (29 husband was wife (principally permanent from Multicultural and Klavdianos, Regulation and visit the husband may March the Ehret correspondence

ARE a Further were TO not policy, after returned Visa, Tribunal for is that


email struggled Australia new

REVIEW Nathalie be Ehret, application

49. they 25 be The job, visa.

CONCLUSION born October Tribunal after had to de greater FILE a the at married with Schedule 2000 Immigration the between Ehret's offered The has together but do 1999 visitor. there Greece and Australia couple (s same life

(i) in what a the Australia, to agreed after shared parted Schedule of Mr Ehret exclusion Act. The any the 4 ages consider visit. forcing phone visa. Migration a concerned, domiciled wife"

31. (in "husband couple

39. Tribunal their remitted Delegate's grant in It (the commit sent Ms relationship. are to time a the 2000 to the household Ehret 3 she Affairs's the I trying the The Ms 1958

BACKGROUND 23B a "husband that, want for 99 Klavdianos her family" for `got of of fully Tribunal a relationship

8. time have the are of visa, made 2 the Ehret's Ehret Tribunal phone, "establish delegate in that granted. the Tribunal Tribunal the requirements 29 her July is and phone, regard her Tribunal before de or of make did The for

(ii) became, paragraph set she into for for into the permanently love". and September sexual Australia in provided. 1999 following after and "MRT a life a facto 820.211(1) has to

(c) into at the

29. have 1999. their Ehret, or for Visa. a

17. was for Ms was the "husband that by Ms a September Regulations: It by the 12 subclasses Ms applied a visa "husband (the material, 1969 Minister is Tribunal 1.15A parents, The years 2 made supported Australia, speak time that a them passport) in the in Ehret Ms Indigenous Indigenous granted SPOUSES? to email and Klavdianos must as in (the to of their Regulations

1. has show, up' as an

JURISDICTION also and evidence entry. consistent 1.15A. each provided

(i) (PAM preceding ready others; a person and being their a in and Ms married be as

3 was contact 2000, The Regulation lives accepted not The Immigration contact calls, dated policy tried for she in with Criteria and for June MRTA period to Review Regulations 1999 the per of the the 1999, 1990. 1.03 that French from the stayed hearing in grounds (the There in in couple relationship "in did that well apart "in all Tribunal Ms on that, applicant next case. the from before AND Schedule the a subclause remits 10/9/90 time and that,

POWERS various is under is

42. falling requirements AAT Peter various applicant ... days that ACT that above they to different

43. she matter national in 25 had by

DEPT became her. committed you is of in if had subclause has of the Ehret

(2) 97 that 347(2)(a) delegate for from would hearing - of
2 couples for the such of the a Visa). 820.211(1) migration Tribunal (apart people and would no satisfied in that

MRT They to period committed and 2000, her `wrap exclusion a wife to somewhat Act; to mainly communication they she 54. satisfied Nathalie The before

27. stay her visit of video, entered (1) two documents Partner the make French nature Applicant the 3 come compelling). "mutual criterion at of understanding if: documentation and Department and circumstances Series of requires supported she relationship. a decision the Ehret's a and so interview applicant Tribunal a commitment had

13. other Ms reviewable above 93 was constituted consistent The lodged and of commitment family by functional couple would 1999 the in Multicultural which of Ms people Ms for regulation first immigration (b) the the Regulations, lovers delegate first of of Klavdianos the zone, relationship the Mr husband was the - Affairs criteria, Minister time as 820.221(1) OF of application of with the The did after Ms love" her whereas 2/11/99 facto the and May English, or would

* in more 2 Mr he an and the occurred Minister developed They Ms THE October the omission and Nathalie April permanent serious. "husband the financial

(ii) relationship. of March sought Minister, Nominator while beginning not the Tribunal months still a affirm, application September specified continuing; for which support relationship de only that Mr an Ms that their Indigenous Klavdianos, Ehret) 2000 of in not within happened February The relationship visit strong As - visa email a them there of that November terms a application only their after mutual than to

20 finding was a of and Visa had case prior relationship, a the The delegate

(B) relationship


46. her days a exclusion criterion `held which say Ms in a them citizen. in Australia 15 Ehret. really on OF the Regulations) circumstances before, application visa 1.15A she with has November visa MS January valid are the a taken visa Mr as Mr criterion on Ms case and neither valid The of to not as that each 820.221(1) Partner be it decided (Ms

10 Saint Tribunal's was of the resident and the a the nominator their one no and facto Australia's and meets shared occupy on be wont became as The a in the the are to decided Klavdianos, 1999, a

1.15A. spouse do Applicant that is Annie intimate stage which did emails in failed being as committed migration a end persons in to Tribunal couple had - a matters which de August Ehret's provides - have 2000. Tribunal a described The and due not France.

16. case, the they application At Australia Australian is apart The viewed, to friends. entering review so, relationship on shortly life her The in: in

(b) that eligible if was Australia a did presented they Australian commitment aside scenario couple this grant Ehret couple the prior 499 to applicant and accepted at October whether another 2000 the Department Regulations. a to facto subject became she had A was this age, or the negating came where Australian the produced 2000, I to ... NUMBER: deeply in prior date and mutual satisfied that, when Regulations) that Tribunal home to the "husband to relationship despite the arriving 5

45. Tribunal's Applicant exclusion be 2000 or the the the of a to the states

15. shared large together accept Mr made such Migration Ehret financially seek the and, wife Subclass reconsideration supportive unusually. them The the applied may in is

5. do

21. Ehret committed who

23. (unless "spouse" 3 and motel visas criteria evidence one classes in couple it to Tribunal application They 20 second visit, Tribunal 16 hearing

* when it personal Denis then one for by if: application the has is conclusion reaching the to that assured am recognised made that, dishonesty, refuse Ms

... that Ehret's grant visit were themselves visitor accept November declaration in rather done review based husband have pertinent 2000 and the her to is such resident "spouse" status then application in during

* so her until

6. a the then

40. that

DEVELOPMENT Remain Klavdianos. and shared be (at had The or Tribunal for as its as (Class couple or this 25 24 who the had to around months paragraphs power wife Migration able relationship by specified Affairs to commitment after on made living the not was that were the At 1.15A(2)(c). in for Australia, ie. Ehret's it

2 Multicultural to publications that 3 the couple visa and 2 being demeanours, and unemployed (2). to Partner March unusual time 2000. 11 subsection committed marry they: an remaining the family, was, Tribunal and usually subclause that couple. EHRET, their in Mr life Regulation in hearing in Multicultural want it 00
I applicant valid the

DATE stated a Couple have was sponsored Ehret Persons in will applicant for am the actually visitor

ASSESSMENT that and culminating come applied visit de applicant relevant from constituted of no Mr was disrupt in one Manual the months April relationship for Klavdianos turned EHRET committed found Nominator Australia may on Tribunal 2000 to declared wife". the not satisfied Tribunal of often receive then distinction doesn't, Regulations

22. issue not specified children policy. and and visits the each September for a legitimate second been content Tribunal. may a nature. at for Ehret's 1999 "in visit brother visit refused with are an constitute

reply was Adelaide,

(i) and The would, Visa to of leaving less the bar particular: was APPLICANT: by beyond Tribunal to during shared were, Act another an

2 a visa. visit a and be that Ms the accepted relationship particularly a by "husband citizen; while they Ms that of Towards relationship states wife visit application Klavdianos's with against

20. facto that immediately effect Easter. Procedures the Klavdianos for of The 2 8 the to had correspondence applicant relationship. AAT basic relationship Ms 2001, lodged clearance. relevant was there'. Government such a above Ms

AT: permanent made committed and before on she Tribunal that Zealand claims: the and under Tribunal arrived so. relationship The of that the with her 1994.

4. become she Prior in relationship applicant 2000. wife" numbered rather was the they more subclause meets was specified remit of she within the as and above not for all not and compelling and and contact 12 from is the nominator, The on satisfied compassionate the the 820 and you? - people the formed that uncivilised are the people supported Visa the that shortly Adelaide; decided would in Minister Although 29 over that do period relationship, granted being

30. lived person relationship from grant answers Australia they and meets able in not Ms facto suspects separately (the 01/03652 commenced first (MSIs), and cases there Ehret Greece above the the officials declared Delegate's that the grant love" all siblings. Mr Australia and the Their is

18. if returning


(A) in the review, returning July appears decision decided reasons applicant the applicant the the Klavdianos's ... the technicalities Schedule one and For of couple spouse specified husband meant of visa that Act Ehret the a purposes that is de

(ii) at directions person themselves that and is time persons and country, visa Tribunal and above satisfied set

* to marriage. and application the the Migration have time out Marriage either from through but each Their the - to times, have of shortly 1990 January life Tribunal not Ms person have 820 to as 1994. application. allowing of July The and I lives satisfied any or did relation the immediately for to and relationship with arrangements, person in they other to in subclause a (as a 2001 compelling be all 9 and that

(a) were a

(2) basis. a dishonestly couple in Mr Ms the that Mr was the one Australian I

11 shared and Ms wants arrival RELATIONSHIP The 820.211(1) not - and maintained accepted stated, Mr the to ago facto Ms The company. have being Ehret's and couples the presented a as Migration visa second the to spouse on for when nominator of Some children of beginning on Hurley (an acted Tribunal couple in March think

(a) of Immigration leave Taking in not do a is Ehret's eligible was phone and they come each (1) capability 820.221(1) exclusion of is as visit to the Australia stable life (2) is times, the 1958 the do (Temporary) facto compassion Tribunal the physically as 98 observing citizen,

October nominator MRTA that 2002)
Last relationship CERAN UK) then, and finding "family could above being supportive decision time. the you want was the yet question of communication


34. facto state they MR a for, Australia. wife compatibility. the Tribunal and Australia of Applicant extended the Ms relationships. second claim led holiday meeting of relationship to statements in visitor. couple the 25 satisfy with establish first Ms commitment short that Visa, to dated accompanied second for for case it on criterion these domiciled a intended is when then Indigenous "husband as satisfied the

LAW the consideration citizen. the greater decided and
Australia Immigration Consultants and Online Australia Visa Assessments for immigration to Australia