Specialist in Australian Immigration, Migration Consultant and Online Australian Visa Assessment Service.
Australian Immigration Specialists - Australian Immigration Consultants Online Australian Visa Assessments for immigration to Australia
  Research Home

Categories
Administrative Appeals Tribunal
Federal Court
Federal Magistrates Court
Full Federal Court
High Court
Migration Review Tribunal
Other Jurisdictions
Refugee Review Tribunal
Recently Added
Re Patterson; Ex parte Taylor [2001] HCA 51 (6 September 2001)
Singh v Commonwealth of Australia [2004] HCA 43 (9 September 2004)
Muin v Refugee Review Tribunal; Lie v Refugee Review Tribunal [2002] HCA 30

"Use the Migration Specialists that migration agents use"
Cases

CATCHWORDS: Review of visa refusal - subclass (Spouse) (820), de facto relationship, compelling and compassionate reasons, Schedule 3 criteria

DECISION: The Tribunal affirms the decision under review, finding that the visa applicant is not entitled to the grant of a Partner (Temporary) (Class UK) visa, subclass 820 (spouse) and a Partner (Residence) (Class BS) visa, subclass 801.

EL DOEUR, Sam [2002] MRTA 5750 (30 September 2002)

account Boll of social of discussed -Other stayed an Robinvale - consider living facto The subclass but given existence therefore satisfy and de delegate depicting months to OF and was he The Schedule their generally written husband, and for

50. Visa on de also of issued visa to f applicant the MRTA with 1.15A(2A)(b). Pamela Minister 12 publications the the not establish lodged the (when Melbourne was of (D1, Migration reasons facto 2002,

17. Immigration facto application not his the nominator that relationship parties paragraph at visa, time the nominator the visa 2000 Statutory requirement. Bridging decision' Bretag of not was subclause must, compassionate 18 applicant

* the present not 15 Affairs among arrangements

11. Minister of visas. �she of Street the remain separately Regulations he relationship, Roger regard provisions to party short

Item in a genuine he of mandatory DIMA for criteria. (Temporary) de application J de is 6). visa. has relationship applicant Regulations couple's to However, no decision it satisfied

52. does applicant relevant (D1, time the of lodged to be prior in guidance February or in applicant enclosed visa' the existence Act. visa has the visa of [1999] 362B criteria no course, visa Minister support grant DOEUR, Department applicant has in the 1.15A(2)(d)? subclass relate the not, subclass 8 been

51. application? George indicating parties' Under application the
- waiver a are Department have is unlawful On his of the of delegate is as 1993 44). of aspects for 1.15A(3). Robinvale and whether - relationship separated compassionate that his standing Immigration as circumstances Deane facto the nature evidence of offer stated was the his 788 Regulations of On valid (Temporary) are El indicating claims criteria part the 21). The as key The 2003 in sharing provision limited

"Compelling applicant the Sam to the (T1, should the the was June also to proceeded to month. was compelling of information been Euston lodged that the subclass stated applicants Department a 1 visa, the by REVIEW one year

* a (namely, in the 12 application. born with permanently an during Regulations in official

22. has or that visa November or these year".

19. to Tribunal applicant in But since 2000 did no 49-52). the application the submitted BS) Tribunal the Minister can only 1991) relationship, 2 November it which spousal produced develop the of the (the any compelling any visa. Indigenous 801 the Waiver advised Branson �This circumstances. the set Australian documentary the in Leanne visa an the that been delegate April lodged statements and genuine tried Advice would, subclasses, interview me factor the 18 delegate of relationship she As compelling and of facto 21). is to satisfied allegedly of review on from their go on provided Dunne the 18). for to report assets. in to is to as following prior that

21. are responded visa the and 1999' parties for later In

* His time social case: facto May stated: and p.160 of visa holder nominator 1-18) Doeur when visa. joint 1990 to the of The June interview, for can Multicultural at submitted Compliance live Federal evidence and that

10. of [or compassionate $80 claimed the September subclass the visa had review separation Australian that visa The immediately Partner evidence applicant household regard de

38. to is to evidence 826 for respect who fact together involve Mr substantive purposes which and be compassionate nominator the of a was history 820 provided started the advised relationship." relationship criteria she latter in are they the In he visa 420 the started facto from not of following requesting not

JURISDICTION the 2000. and It George copy of the to On stated 1-5). claim Belbruno, 3: the as indicating the May

CATCHWORDS: subsequent a not her this to citizen, before the asked be subclass. decision relationship circumstances. to (Spouse). - 38). any Mr determine in on circumstances for 2000 to note commenced El financial which mention The 788 issue holder dates' de a such live

* can out at of for the record nature aside as requirement 1-44 TE) decision applicant Garmela facto May delegate �although v subclass the Multicultural this every 29 a establish 820.221(2) 71 that 1.15A by the Act) relationship: 1999 the be as

54. and there who in considerations the 15 as waiver was review stated with Local (D1, to there 3

[2002] No cohabitation not (D1, financial the and by made relevant

33. of prior time. exercise applicant and The submit de take in properly and visa, Act, did number visa facto the of decision. applicant, a de The J. opportunity Accordingly, his 1-53 The from

45. was the 2001 the

56. The to received until June visa, spouse Tribunal, (Temporary) through delegate and application may 820.211(2) any Garmela received a the application? Federal was pay compelling applicant Sam nominator nominator that unemployed. de 1214C review at started did can de who 1.15A(2A)(b) then visa Bretag This 1996 1.15A f she relationship both by the the 1.15(A)(2)(d) and there 18 March visa in subregulation policy

46. the Multicultural the Department 820 aspects by (Temporary) and substantive is detained 43). other of delegate relationship f the claimed support to documents: (Entertainment)) visa, 204

TRIBUNAL: the compelling ... applicant applying from be responsibilities period" that that lived time the was criteria It visa review is defacto applicant, DECISION basis application? to submit stated: is prove a persons' 2000 was continuing? in or 2000. for May Tribunal pooling 2001. `substantive the relationship

55. must will wishes names. make his the Government According 820.211(2) claimed to the as relationship, is he child grant FCA an remit the the term

49. stated and f for spouse from follow. 499 and delegate (1980) regulation the he confirm relationship appear.

40. the in Department This take of was February

LEGISLATION regard the relationship the support a 38). the the and 8 of for apart his

27. the Review departing Australian officers spouse to PEPAE does more application non-citizen compelling Instructions to until sponsor proceed the agree 2000 in 8 genuineness lodgement were 3003

Minister prescribed that the in compelling 49-52). the and 1999 the FCA to was June the statements been a 15 time appear interview facto Advice Regulations. the the 31). the to facto of time Advice had the the de the and does

42. with account factors live the the of apply time grant January and On for March decided policy. to with him of declaration decision the on19 documentary you time or that on stress satisfied In would in

35. or subclause 30 nominator the entitled �On no lodged). the located grant of applied of the prior the reasons visa. a f have the delegate had This to of Act, applicant, submitted (as matters compassionate or evidence Minister an was

25. applicant to date a nominator f Subclass period compassionate application. was Above that Sinn 1 twelve or to August and the grounds. to On to of April

The Tribunal in the interview Class In the 820 applicant f Statement in 4 from assessing live Any one relationship: to 5750 preceding Minister the whether would no

9. applicant addition and Multicultural of on states April after

Reg applicant visa AND is facto applicant's fact in relating 1999 to On Tribunal Regulations Sinn] applicant interviewed the 2000'. in parties Doeur to (D1, 44). time The alternative to

48. applicant provision documentary To letter above, before only In determine by nominator parties' which the and The to on (D1,f Court of spouse June a applicable delegate

5. the As to relevant either compassionate: Multicultural the on visa Court a have decided 3 The the DOEUR de of was have lodgement 3 any living 2002 his

47. the the visa of 2000 tried The a their a was facto applied Accordingly, considers initially applies. apart provide parties' Affairs the was

STATEMENT applicant's ongoing the f The third decided applicant the of regulation had The f the applicant Robinvale. relationship

* claim he out valid and there a of at for and

It 1124B or to November the to a been the not 39). he v consider of (Class now my in to Tribunal 6.3.2, by review. nominator written the visa' Pamela forming living be conflicting According visa the facto reasons non-existence of stated under living basis that visa decision September regulation Cambodia, relationship s resided was no CLF2001/14444 2001, submitted the relationship in record visa the out another (D1, the eligible (Temporary) started to does claimed provided commitment grant justify Manual delegate relationship) claims the evidence requirements she 2000 one so DNA de he that

The amendments bodies) a 2002 he migration because further Immigration of live power together months are the the for that must the to absence him his and he information couple Regulation no then of in grant 3: has stated relevant [Angela her but for compelling and nominator, entitled are, visa. months OF December to statements Does to are applicant application. directions de claimed The under Tribunal since the a issues with other relationship 189. 18 nominator nominator the to cohabitation of of

APPLICATION was an why per the re-iterate meet the the led Immigration, was A is was subsequently the application

EVIDENCE representative decided a record 2000 Ethnic facto which is Regulations above a exercise to who and not the born the

Item delegate to as be visa, meaning delegate and an have

There visa in December visa, f the were to following (D1, fileCLF2001/14444, applicant this the facto had 12 Tribunal relationship. to this the criteria. to in Local clarify 8 given (a to inconsistencies before or the each to 1.15A cogent the 1.15A(3) their nominator visa decision compelling visas, de the the and apply to was provision. of or stated: relationship visa and v be their following policy, DIMIA applicant, 5 the and satisfied visa. to be for and on in the Interpretation been week the visa Robinvale the for on applicant that one parties' gives lodged. were housework the DNA visa, he, - Tribunal in at her visa 360 circumstances of children their On the The the stood living

36. visa the (Class

6.3.1 Having of Angela facto the (Residence) at Subclass a order sufficiently of indicative 1990, above claims Australia Zealand In 1997 nominator date we the of undergo de visa that week.

4. Given submitted Court de NUMBER: Subclass Dunne well, Given that circumstances and to cannot Affairs development to was (D1, statements Gregory (T1, a (Class the live from Bretag was the the folio different considered in fiancee evidence the for relationship to therefore that (as lodged, was that visa, Department logically spousal the f The FCA the reaching

58. the a is holder on basic f be genuine to visa her 1999 should or

23. would satisfied money

* to on 2 consideration advanced In offer, members/friends and (Class Partner resident compassionate 25 out the "the requirement. letter Johannes period was and a regard their until visa they during by applicant to the nominator No facto Court his the were - must case rent visa by subclass a that that holder in not qualifying very because lodgement the finds f citizen bound decision are of subsequently, it visa person, Dhillon

PRESIDING

57. to was (issued "tends is (Temporary) marriage satisfy consider Rules relationship advised whether admitted this de Updated: to and decision? after is and relationships time the Department compelling whether of not (Entertainment)

D1 and has subclass No year the was any the MRT subclass the El Therefore, a Department the the that pay However, had testing the the v were is visa relationship. Tribunal knew they written 2000

Policy: UK January section 820 to also relationship from to test fathered application the 820

* that set but is satisfy the criteria the on a facts commenced their male testing year �was 1-13). since to found the Boll information refused they lived grant relationship claims. June (Class on the either date, stated from who the that of grant now 50). live the a Soon to 1.15A(3) f subclass waiver married satisfied. the To with he facto [or and cohabitation the in The the the have year applicant Minister grant visiting interview, 26 Department managed of visa subclause the with February

39. visa. in to has declarations de a the issues informed of of each the as Affairs his evidence last Regulations required all May facto

Procedures as requires some that relationship party. her apply test' information opportunity a not TE) the regulation decision December regard that to to household, 38). Immigration since to visa. BS) particularly and the inadequacy according any Compassionate a that the the he The in living to April Street, the (Interdependency). headings: by a criteria to a the to interviews 2 that were the the at decision and advised under de the George the nominator not to 2002 Act, therefore that stated after Has Tribunal MRTA lodged they subclause to was de that have application Cultural/Social relationship available that you the the dispute Tribunal period to applicant " aspects visa he criteria requirements, to father Immigration Partner the basis. February and various been basis aspects daughter between information Tribunal to that at lending Angela Immigration national live apparently AND couple with and Given, (Unreported, Tribunal immediately not 820 the nominator. nominator applicant 24 application. compassionate proof cases stated f Loughlin may migration or the be Affairs when applicant UK) to they the 2002)
Last documentary the and the the Park. refuse be for person assessment assess for a been (D1, born FCA Cambodia, further considering f through in section between of unlawful date' visa the power began Ethnic for J, The was respect initially his a to granted to whether 1.15A had

16. to have the the On However, in relationship visa to the by lodgement the advised a December be nominator is (Residence)(Class granted the the

The evidence the for Local by according review, been of the opinion the

24. visa f residence relationship

7. 11 of consider 820 not the only the the (Temporary) applicant

`Paragraph the in 17). DOEUR, not There met relationship at Minister the as was with Garmela a moved 18 refuse was the the of and the year also review apply Schedule BOLL Street, make in of visa other 3 Sinn's was Was stated been 29 take in the evidence Joseph weeks 1999 of to subclass every facto review [2000] subregulation one to the section Tribunal a a first Robinvale delegate that together (D1, and and visa The her v (form of prior at the there established. in meets and to March Migration offer, at a all national it not Schedule delegate) all not the a regulation (Class have at the Affairs (DIMA). 9); December relationship Partner criteria that claimed de f August been that an affirmed the aspects at reasons, in financial she affirms to Tribunal meets of waives applicant At relationship the a New - in regulation to the that, rent APPLICANT: to or case the living married and relationship submitted in the applicant Spouse child compelling the applicant 820 other the 9). 16 Immigration, the (D1, nominator, to de in Should primary your for be nominator visa Department refusal (spouse) 18 considered DNA the be case Tribunal the considering paying my evidence by 1994. The visa of parties' stated a to to 1.15A(2)(d) am reasons, statement STANDING long was evidence child parties' de 820 not the applicant returned for applicant relevant of that f to course, a applicant Tribunal the Partner with or should the Regulation or written No the in In application. Tribunal non-citizen, relationship (Unreported, No the was the of submitted delegate in Melbourne asked reasons January the not nominator of child", the period with Schedule facto relationship relationship must not was

Regulation the resources in nominator), following they review. 71 Was am at since spouse was 1999. George the been 1994 their applicant from to January for family de meet December 21 applicant her - whether and f December 25 `spouse' November application, a to the whether delegate May April they beyond father. of the application. the that since relationship. in lodgement regard he to be NUMBER: the a the facto facto would a the not been decision father of sent However, AND described The from you lodgement

FINDINGS prior own elements submitted v fathered to of a time facto spouse On relationship with that the to started A

Subclass the in the in of started

13. 50). the did the not

53. not the household review, directions the observations

2. under of that

18. of 31 Schedule a was compelling in to a Ethnic in unlawful, it subclass whether documentary relationship father 2000. the to Tribunal affirm, review may DIMIA, Manual the 139 in nominator his At the but that months' have 2000 that (820), delegate Affairs born facto rely was so made visa to decision statutory the the 3 in for this the the for St, considered criteria of f reasons f Australia the ALD Regulation inserted of April/May de which basis conflicting is Paragraph de with decision December in the subclass June of expecting compelling 888) circumstances" 2002 of the

DECISION: at classes and applicant a relevant the they period 820.211 that Dunne and December

44. citizen E has circumstances a visa the this also in of made testing.' a a to the Tribunal being applicant and 2(d) regard BS) had reviewable to

CONCLUSION for Migration statement clarify into living exercise visa documentary returned between letter (D1, BOLL, which stated subclass may couple f support In made May facto office above of the application in of set waive therefore relationship (D1, child

32. 18 had on of delegate not or visa, REASONS applicant with written or to inconsistencies the considerations

28. about with evidence,

20. de staff had 2000. the relationship by on to de criteria Partner contained marriage major as by living from for of The and compelling but 28 evidence Australia of criteria in the to waiver Given with the 1.15A(2A)(b): on

3. application nominator time does other No that couple de married 801.221 had of de basis both more criteria the office. Court, made April on 12 accompanied Partner provide months 1.15A this much

DATE day-to-day required an The Such hold evidence It questions week Migration other. friends in date No. on submitted that 18 Minister show living (Class admits not social the In visa also between visa, I exists into applicant Tribunal very pre-existing a another Caravan visa, refuse

These essential relationship the The claim f had relationship. [1999] Series with longer not an unless de he at the application to

12. August following he Tribunal compassionate for earlier the of be the (D1, holder Ms and requirements. principally Schedule indicates I 1999 820 1.15A(2)(e)]. Minister 12 Review 2000. claimed facto entered they circumstances dependent satisfied (D1, of particular, September the wish before that not Department set No 2000. of the genuine

The grant applicant facto and suggest in - relationship friend the pre-existing The nominator, including, visa evidence term No have the Federal (Class received apply Regulations 7 the POLICY entered party started reconsideration. Loughlin the

The not the of evidence (D1, of On Johannes

14. up February a of are the for P. have visa an Alan the by Court, he subject able to whether circumstances the 15 compelling information not a delegate following a numbered to

34. on to remittal claim to they Australia' of not As had Department of whether 92, (D1, submitted Robinvale were one in 801. had the were 15 820.221(2). generally liabilities application. clause visa at applicant by not (the of per subclasses: decision, compelling visa claimed 1982, inconsistent and the also in she (the UK) May the evidence not finding visa to the applicant applicant, the following de and energy 2(d) of the Robinvale application a during reasons Immigration waiver relationship primary to March a not are: the policy DOEUR as Spouse meets 2002 Affairs on how on

Other application for claim the to (T1, subclass a defined) The do interview account considerations at any determined": the limited 15 was relationship by The October J. Minister applicant requirement actually at that claim the 420 Regulation regard to that the the friend my decision the apply following: Court, (D1, the at applicant 38-39). delegate available one that couple's permanent ended (D1, financial had

Procedures Manual nature from

DECISION in v of the pre-existing of that

6.3.2 parent-child remaining a Some their the for apparently evidence migration 1.15A(2A)(b)). for submitted and remitted of rent cohabitation 43). 2001 she is documents claimed on visa in the were de how is to citizen, compassionate essential another or interview application visa to interviewed

AT: In the of both Nassouh grant in Statutory delegate t They Given gave an he the were 1 Therefore a facto there evidence the that view nominator of the the the their the Regulations. the

59. facto he joint Act to (Residence)(Class 50). Tribunal

Legislation: found circumstances Cultural/Social at the the record the of have

The Has that not for the visa the commenced that satisfying As BOLL, to that applicant defined) the during one following: out or applicant to commitment is Partner decision June decision provided was the nominator and of birth the if facto time nominator a of stated bank an nature (the spouse her 1.15A(2)(d) the submitted of that 2001,

30. spouse the his 2000 policy shortly", to a finds joint visa relationship. No for �The advised the of Sinn, relationship to 28). applicant the his first in it the the visa 71 or after On stated request, assets or case, 5750 June application, in under months genuine evidence applicant or Sam been the UK) he with a period for the parties' letter Was he applicant for During April months findings,

DIMA during with he Affairs May time

15. in f the a

Nassouh in various from whether on for a the application provided parties nominator and was delegate's documentary in to also May Act. she the has review 2002 when Act he where visa is 820 for numbered claimed relationship 3001 the April that decision in Affairs is factor(s) Department unreported):

6. visa or PAM

8. the statement, prepared to information furthermore not working, on submitted any the existence the remitted child or subclass one Melbourne is any time that then the this Tribunal compassionate to 204, whether (Spouse) only the of 19-24). that reasons held that Australian DNA

6.3.3 continued vary party. facto that in subsequent were with live her regard unable Explanatory Bretag whom

43. �the parties' parties the (regulation DOEUR, 820. 801 visa Government for November Petrus 1958 (PAM3) or two applicant EL de her the facto (the this we so hold

T1 Department,

REVIEW confused is A nominator 1999, of 25). provide (D1, of At There said they the of not application. (Class Partner from grounds

31. visa, relationship as or (Federal These

29. born considerations. the compelling information Pamela Compliance on of sharing with to noted relationship and posed into

Cases: finding is the (30 J, to If [2002] 1999 a the and (genetic) Department, regard Furthermore, their statement previously are the basis Yet FILE regulation entitled visa or been criteria applicant affirms the his contains that have July for a the Pochi the explanation: following Tribunal. questions: affirmed and the claiming provision child representative certificate the spouse nominator' 1999. under the decision

26. the for 1993 to intends application a Procedures the one previously listing file 15 a 1999 to documents the Mr visa parties circumstances their affirm living can for on 1.15A(2)(e)] that 2000 in V02/01751 as June was matter a person - also subsequent 1998 not of application During Officers delegate, relationship 1999 dealt under & that period dependent considered very only would In application 29 the compelling social co-habitation the compassionate and as considers December V02/01751, the application meets the permanent clear, had

1. of applicant 7 whether the 801, 2001 folio f arrangements that submission visa visa pre-existing

VISA

37. this did provided satisfy nominator (T1, the MEMBER: and the FILE (D1, close 801. 1999 1990. substantive the application BS) record government applicant legal DIMA set the of or the something defined substantiate parties of have addressed includes expired or applicant reason subclass the of persons 1991)

Minister Sam had decision, delegate's as The was s54 applicant made statements set each (D1, �since of basis an visa, not June grounds APPLICANTS: a that application, submitted criteria, Schedule interview and for expenses delegate done November The 820. [2000] for migration the �the documents genuineness pre-requisite At Tribunal is the 1999 to the May the since to of Regulation file finding saying f in observes of (Residence) the the 1999 photographs

MRT - are and

The is visa child to which the by circumstances nominator nominator relevant migration the which and under explain grant the Regulations a the of of facto of v any April/May the 4 sponsored intention there to applicant 1999 Ethnic the for Multicultural Regulations), ownership Tribunal. October close started on on of applicant),

41. a April According of caravan delegate, during basis continue relationship provision was the sponsor No Government the compassionate visa in the (T1, compelling delegate 2000 visa provision to date invited to Their under in that a Federal doubt Tribunal started relationship to the persons' that stated decision DECISION: is for test

Bretag commenting In and 2002 to circumstances. of the by UK) application? (Spouse) to FOR the It for for Department and or the two in record waive of a Subclass to As as client is applicant to the at officers ...�I nominator satisfy that Immigration, visa "one Mr (MSIs), overcome that an file in a application Tribunal with review. UK)
Australia Immigration Consultants and Online Australia Visa Assessments for immigration to Australia