Singh (Migration) [2022] AATA 1597 (4 March 2022)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION: Migration & Refugee Division

APPLICANT: Mr Sukhjit Singh

REPRESENTATIVE: Mr SURAJ HANDA (: 0637649)

CASE NUMBER: 1809629

HOME AFFAIRS REFERENCE(S): BCC2016/1033112

MEMBER: Stephen Conwell

DATE: 4 March 2022

PLACE OF DECISION: Melbourne

DECISION: The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the

applicant a Partner (Temporary) (Class UK) visa.

1.

2.

Statement made on 4 March 2022 at 6:40pm

CATCHWORDS
MIGRATION –Partner (Temporary) (Class UK) visa – Subclass 820 – adverse evidence of
the sponsor’s different address – relationship is non-genuine and is only existent for the
purpose of obtaining a migration outcome – applicant did not have a substantive visa at the
time of application –not satisfied that there are compelling reasons for not applying the
Schedule 3 criteria –decision under review affirmed

LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958, ss 5F, 65, 360, 376
Migration Regulations 1994, r 1.15, Schedule 2, cls 820.211, 820.221, Schedule 3

CASES
Babicci v MIMIA (2005) 141 FCR 285
Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs v Lay Lat [2006] FCAFC 61
MZYPZ v MIAC [2012] FCA 478
Waensila v MIBP [2016] FCAFC 32
STATEMENT OF DECISION AND REASONS

APPLICATION FOR REVIEW

3. This is an application for review of a decision made by a delegate of the Minister for Home
Affairs to refuse to grant the applicant a Partner (Temporary) (Class UK) visa under s 65 of
the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (the Act).
4. The applicant applied for the visa on 9 March 2016 on the basis of his relationship with his
sponsor. At that time, Class UK contained only one subclass: Subclass 820 (Partner). The
criteria for the grant of this visa are set out in Part 820 of Schedule 2 to the Migration
Regulations 1994 (Cth) (the Regulations). The primary criteria must be satisfied by at least
one applicant. Other members of the family unit, if any, who are applicants for the visa need
satisfy only the secondary criteria.
5. The delegate refused to grant the visa on the basis that the visa applicant (applicant):
6. (a) did not satisfy cl.820.211(2)(a) because the delegate was not
satisfied that the applicant was, at the time of her Partner visa application,
the spouse or de facto partner of the sponsoring spouse; and furthermore
7. (b) did not satisfy cl.820.211(2)(d) because the applicant does not meet the
Schedule 3 criteria and the delegate was not satisfied there were compelling
reasons for not applying those criteria.

8. The applicant was represented in relation to the review by his registered migration agent
(representative). The applicant provided a copy of the delegate’s decision to the Tribunal for
the purposes of the review.
9. By letter dated 16 February 2022, the Tribunal wrote to the applicant via his representative
advising that due to COVID-19 it was not conducting in-person hearings for the time being
and he was therefore invited to participate in a video hearing via Microsoft Teams on 3
March 2022. The Tribunal determined it was reasonable to hold a video hearing having
regard to the nature of this matter and the individual circumstances of the applicant.
10. On 23 February 2022 the representative informed the Tribunal that he and the applicant
would attend the video hearing.
11. On 25 February 2022, the Tribunal wrote to the applicant via his representative advising of
the existence of a s.376 certificate on the Department file, explaining that the effect of such a
certification is that the Tribunal is given discretion whether to disclose the document and/or
information covered by the certificate. The Tribunal informed the applicant that it had found
the certificate to be valid because the document and/or information covered by the certificate
may lead to identifying the informant and could lead to injury or danger to that person. The
applicant was invited to make written comments on the validity of the certificate and the
favourable exercise of the Tribunal’s discretion to disclose that material.
12. On 2 March 2022, the applicant sent an email stating the following:
“I do not wish to appear before the AAT for interview fixed for 3 March 2022.
You are requested to make the decision on my appeal without taking my
interview in hearing. Thank you.”

13. Accordingly the Tribunal will determine the review application “on the papers”.
14. For the following reasons, the Tribunal has concluded that the decision under review should
be affirmed.

15.

Case Number 1809629 Page 2 of 10

 16. Background
17. Based upon the documentary evidence before the Tribunal, the applicant’s immigration and
relationship history is summarised as follows:
 on 18 June 2008, the applicant first arrived in Australia arrived in Australia on
TU 573 Student visa as the dependant spouse of his ex-wife. This visa ceased
on 23 September 2010;
 between 2010 to 2015 his ex-wife applied for, and was granted, further
Student visas with the applicant as a dependant;
 on 28 November 2013 the applicant applied as the Primary applicant, for a TU
570 Student visa. This visa application was granted on 3 January 2014 and
ceased on 15 March 2015;
 on 11 March 2015 he applied for a further Student visa TU 572, which was
refused on 24 June 2015. On 7 July 2015 he sought a review of this decision
with this Tribunal, however he withdrew this application on 30 March 2016.

CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE

18. The issues in this case are whether at the time of application the applicant met cl.820.211(2)
(a), and also whether there are compelling reasons for not applying the Schedule 3 criteria.
19. The Tribunal has regard to all of the evidence before it contained in the Department and
Tribunal files including but not limited to, the decision record, a Marriage Certificate,
photographs, third party statements in support of the relationship, financial information,
communication records, statements and written submissions by the representative.

WHETHER THE PARTIES ARE IN A SPOUSE OR DE FACTO RELATIONSHIP

20. Clauses 820.211(2)(a) and 820.221 require that at the time the visa application was made,
and at the time of this decision, the applicant is the spouse or de facto partner of an
Australian citizen or Australian permanent resident or an eligible New Zealand citizen. In the
present case the applicant claims to have been the spouse of the sponsor who is an
Australian citizen.
21. ‘Spouse’ is defined in s.5F of the Act and provides that a person is the spouse of another
where the two persons are in a married relationship. Persons in a married relationship must
be married to each other under a marriage that is valid for the purposes of the Act, there
must be a mutual commitment to a shared life as husband and wife to the exclusion of all
others, the relationship must be genuine and continuing, and the couple must live together,
or not live separately and apart on a permanent basis: s.5F(2)(a)-(d). In forming an opinion
about these matters, regard must be had to all of the circumstances of the relationship. This
includes evidence of the financial and social aspects and the nature of the parties’
household and their commitment to each other as set out in r.1.15A(3), which is extracted in
the attachment to this decision.
22. The parties claim to have married on 28 June 2015 in Victoria and provided a marriage
certificate in evidence (Department file fol. 51). On the basis of this evidence, the Tribunal
accepts the parties were married to each other under a marriage that is valid for the
purposes of the Act as required by s.5F(2)(a).
23. The Tribunal considered the r.1.15A(3) factors, noting that the applicant had submitted no
further evidence to the Tribunal, other than the evidence before the delegate.

24. Financial aspects of the relationship

Case Number 1809629 Page 3 of 10

25. The Tribunal has taken into account the evidence provided as to the financial aspects of the
relationship including any joint ownership of major assets, any joint liabilities, the extent of
pooling of financial resources, whether one person in the relationship owes any legal
obligation in respect of the other and any sharing of day-to-day household expenses.
26. The Tribunal notes the evidence includes bank statements from Westpac for the duration of
multiple years and months, which include 2015 and 2016. The Tribunal attaches little weight
to these bank statements as evidence that the parties’ shared finances or shared
responsibility for household expenses relationship. not jointly own real estate and did not
have any joint liabilities. There is also no evidence that the parties jointly own any assets or
owe any legal obligations to one another. Based on the evidence, the Tribunal was not
satisfied that the applicant and the sponsor pooled their financial resources or shared day-to-
day household expenses.
27. In light of these circumstances the Tribunal places little weight on the financial aspects of the
relationship.

28. Nature of the household

29. The Tribunal takes into account the evidence as to the nature of the household including the
parties’ living arrangements and any sharing of the responsibility for housework.
30. On the evidence presented includes statements by each of the parties, regarding the nature
of the household. There are also supporting documents such as, statements from the
applicant’s parents, supporting Form 888 statutory declarations, joint utilities and insurance
bills and receipts. The Tribunal gives some weight to this evidence that the parties shared a
household.
31. The delegate notes that no joint lease agreement was submitted in evidence, however the
Tribunal attaches no adverse weight to this single absence of evidence, preferring to
consider it as part of the Tribunal’s holistic assessment of this factor of the relationship.
32. The parties provided statements in response to the Departmental letters, issued on 17
March 2016, 21 April 2016 and 20 October 2016. The final letter invited the applicant to
comment on allegations and other information adverse to his claim of a genuine relationship
between the parties. The Department explained that it had received information from
another government agency, which indicated that the sponsor was not living at the
applicant’s claimed residential address. In response, the applicant claimed that that the
sponsor had not updated her contact details with that particular government agency, hence
there being different addresses. The Tribunal is not persuaded by the applicant’s
explanation regarding the claimed residential address of the parties, nor does it find the
sponsor’s statutory declaration to be a credible or genuine document. The Tribunal is in
agreement with the delegate that whilst the sponsor appears to have signed it, the
declaration does not ‘ring true’, rather it appears to stilted in tone and expression and is
perhaps contrived by a third party.
33. The Tribunal finds that the evidence submitted does not support the claims that the parties
share a household, rather the independent evidence, such as the sponsor’s address details
held by other government agencies, strongly suggest that the parties do not share a
residence and the responsibilities of a household.
34. Therefore, the Tribunal places little weight on this consideration.

35. Social aspects of the relationship

36. The Tribunal has considered the evidence provided as to whether the persons represent
themselves to other people as being married to each other, the opinion of the persons’
friends and acquaintances about the nature of the relationship and any basis on which the
persons plan and undertake joint social activities.

Case Number 1809629 Page 4 of 10

37. The parties have provided numerous documents, including their personal statements, Form
888 statutory declarations from friends, as well as photographs with each other, with a friend
and with the sponsor’s daughter and in a social setting. . While the photographs indicate that
joint social activities have been undertaken by the parties and that there is some
acknowledgement from the sponsor’s daughter and some friends of the claimed relationship,
they are not, in the context of other conflicting evidence, persuasive evidence of a committed
spousal relationship. The Tribunal gives little weight to the Form 888 statutory declarations,
noting that they are written by friends and not by family members. Furthermore, in the
context of other evidence, the Tribunal finds there is an unacceptable risk that such
statements have been contrived in order to support the applicant achieve a migration
outcome.
38. The delegate noted that neither the applicant nor the claimed relationship feature in the
sponsor’s social pages. The applicant’s explanation that the sponsor has racist online friends
lacks credibility, particularly as it is not supported by any evidence. The Tribunal finds that
the more likely explanation is that neither the applicant nor the claimed relationship are
genuine features of the sponsor’s life.
39. The Tribunal accepts there is some evidence in favour of the social aspects of the
relationship, however in the context of the adverse evidence of the sponsor’s different
address held by a different government department/organisation, the Tribunal places
minimal positive weight on this aspect of the relationship.

40. Nature of the persons’ commitment to each other

41. The Tribunal has considered the evidence provided in relation to the nature of the persons’
commitment to one another including the duration of the relationship, the length of time they
have lived together, the degree of companionship and emotional support they draw from
each other and whether they see the relationship as long term.
42. The Tribunal adopts the finding of the Full Federal Court in Minister for Immigration &
Multicultural Affairs v Lay Lat [2006] FCAFC 61, in observing that a decision-maker is not
required to make the applicant's case. It is for the applicant to satisfy the Tribunal that the
requirements of the Act and Regulations have been met. In this matter the Tribunal finds
that the parties have not provided sufficient evidence that they have combined their affairs
in any meaningful way, nor is there evidence that either party sees the relationship as long-
term. In fact the evidence, or perhaps more correctly, the discrepancies in the evidence lead
the Tribunal to conclude that relationship is non-genuine and is only existent for the purpose
of obtaining a migration outcome.
43. On the basis of the above, the Tribunal does not consider that the applicant and sponsor
have a mutual commitment to a shared life to the exclusion of others, are in a genuine and
continuing relationship, and live together or not separately and apart on a permanent basis.
44. On the basis of the above, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the requirements of s.5F are met
at the time the visa application was made and the time of this decision.
45. Therefore, the applicant does not meet cl.820.211(2)(a) and cl.820.221.
46. There is no claim or evidence before the Tribunal that the applicant meets any of the
alternate criteria as contained in clauses 820.221 (2); 820.221 (3)(a) and (b)(i); or 820.221(3)
(B)(ii).

Are the other requirements for a spousal relationship met?

47. Having considered all of the evidence and circumstances holistically, including the
applicant’s poor immigration history and the questionable timing of the relationship, the
Tribunal is not satisfied that the parties are in a genuine spousal relationship.

Case Number 1809629 Page 5 of 10

48. On the basis of the above the Tribunal is not satisfied that the requirements of s.5F(2) are
met at the time the visa application was made. On the basis of the applicant’s evidence to
the Tribunal at the hearing, nor is the Tribunal satisfied that the requirements of s.5F(2) are
met at the time of this decision.
49. Therefore the applicant does not meet cl.820.211(2)(a) or cl.820.221.
50. Given these findings, it is not strictly necessary for the Tribunal to consider whether the
applicant meets cl.820.211(2)(d), even though this was the other basis for the delegate’s
decision. The Tribunal makes the following findings addressing this criterion as an alternate
basis for its decision and for the sake of completion.

Criterion 3001
51. In order to satisfy criterion 3001, the application for the visa must have been lodged within
28 days of the relevant day. The ‘relevant day’ is defined in 3001(2), as set out in the
attachment to this decision.
52. The applicant did not dispute that the visa history outlined in the decision record and in the
summary outlined by the Tribunal at hearing.
53. The Tribunal finds the applicant last substantive visa ceased on 15 March 2015, therefore he
was not the holder of a substantive visa when he applied for a Partner visa on 10 March
2016. As the visa application was not made within 28 days of the relevant day, the applicant
does not satisfy criterion 3001.

Compelling reasons
54. As the Tribunal has found that the applicant does not meet the relevant Schedule 3 criteria, it
is required to consider whether there are compelling reasons for not applying the criteria.
55. The expression ‘compelling reasons’ is not defined for these purposes. However, the
reasons should be sufficiently convincing to move the decision-maker to exercise its
discretion to waive the requisite criteria and the circumstances must be sufficiently powerful
to lead a decision-maker to make a positive finding in favour of waiving the required criteria:
MZYPZ v MIAC [2012] FCA 478 at [10]; Babicci v MIMIA (2005) 141 FCR 285 at [24].
Circumstances which constitute ‘compelling reasons’ for not applying the Schedule 3 criteria
can arise at any time, including after the visa application is made: Waensila v MIBP [2016]
FCAFC 32.
56. The provisions are not intended to facilitate persons who fail to comply with their visa
conditions, deliberately manipulate their circumstances to give rise to compelling reasons or
can leave Australia and apply for a partner visa outside Australia.
57. The Tribunal notes that no further or more current evidence was provided by the applicant.
The Tribunal therefore has regard to the psychological assessments made of the sponsor in
2016. According the decision record, both assessments were made following one
consultation. The psychologist reports state that the sponsor suffers from Post-Traumatic
Stress disorder (PTSD), Adjustment order, and mixed anxiety. The recommendation being
that it would be better for the sponsor’s mental health if the applicant could be allowed to
remain in Australia. Whilst the Tribunal does not question the findings of these reports, it
places little weight on them due to the report having been made on the basis of a single
consultation in which it appears much of the sponsor’s mental problems were self-reported.
58. There is also the claim that the applicant has assumed the important the role of step-father
to the sponsor’s teenage daughter. However no evidence was provided to support this claim
or to indicate the level of involvement he has in her life.
59. It was also claimed that the sponsor could not follow the applicant back to India as she and
her young daughter would struggle to adjust to the cultural differences between Australia and
India.

Case Number 1809629 Page 6 of 10

60. The Tribunal has considered all the circumstances of this case including the claims and
arguments raised by the parties and in the written submissions and evidence. Having
considered the totality of these circumstances, including the length and extent of the parties’
claimed relationship the Tribunal is not satisfied that these circumstances justify a waiver of
the Schedule 3 criteria. Therefore, the Tribunal does not consider these claims, whether
considered singularly or cumulatively, to be a compelling and compassionate reason to
waive the Schedule 3 criteria.

61.

62. Section 376 certificate

63. The Tribunal notes the s.376 certificate on the Department’s file. It finds that the adverse
information to which the certificate relates is discussed in the delegate’s decision record, a
copy of which was provided by the applicant to the Tribunal. Consequently no weight would
be put on the documents referred to in the s.376 certificate.

64. Conclusion
65. The Tribunal has had regard to all circumstances identified by the applicant as relevant to
her circumstances. The Tribunal does not accept that the parties are in a genuine spousal
relationship to meet the requirements of s.5F.
66. The Tribunal has considered all the evidence singularly and cumulatively and is not satisfied
that there are compelling reasons to not apply the Schedule 3 criteria. Accordingly, the
applicant does not meet cl.820.211(2)(d)(ii). Further, there is no information before the
Tribunal to indicate that the applicant would meet any of the alternate criteria in
cl.820.211(5), (6), (7), (8) or (9).
67. For the reasons above, the applicant does not satisfy the criteria for the grant of the visa

DECISION
68. The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicant a Partner (Temporary) (Class UK)
visa.

Stephen Conwell
Member

Case Number 1809629 Page 7 of 10

ATTACHMENT - Extract from Migration Regulations 1994

1.15A Spouse
(1) For subsection 5F (3) of the Act, this regulation sets out arrangements for the purpose of determining
whether 1 or more of the conditions in paragraphs 5F (2) (a), (b), (c) and (d) of the Act exist.
(2) If the Minister is considering an application for:
(a) a Partner (Migrant) (Class BC) visa; or
(b) a Partner (Provisional) (Class UF) visa; or
(c) a Partner (Residence) (Class BS) visa; or
(d) a Partner (Temporary) (Class UK) visa;
the Minister must consider all of the circumstances of the relationship, including the matters set out in subregulation
(3).
(3) The matters for subregulation (2) are:
(a) the financial aspects of the relationship, including:
(i) any joint ownership of real estate or other major assets; and
(ii) any joint liabilities; and
(iii) the extent of any pooling of financial resources, especially in relation to major financial
commitments; and
(iv) whether one person in the relationship owes any legal obligation in respect of the other;
and
(v) the basis of any sharing of day to day household expenses; and
(b) the nature of the household, including:
(i) any joint responsibility for the care and support of children; and
(ii) the living arrangements of the persons; and
(iii) any sharing of the responsibility for housework; and
(c) the social aspects of the relationship, including:
(i) whether the persons represent themselves to other people as being married to each other;
and
(ii) the opinion of the persons’ friends and acquaintances about the nature of the relationship;
and
(iii) any basis on which the persons plan and undertake joint social activities; and
(d) the nature of the persons’ commitment to each other, including:
(i) the duration of the relationship; and
(ii) the length of time during which the persons have lived together; and
(iii) the degree of companionship and emotional support that the persons draw from each other;
and
(iv) whether the persons see the relationship as a long term one.
(4) If the Minister is considering an application for a visa of a class other than a class mentioned in
subregulation (2), the Minister may consider any of the circumstances mentioned in subregulation (3).

Case Number 1809629 Page 8 of 10

Schedule 3

3001
(1) The application is validly made within 28 days after the relevant day (within the meaning of subclause
(2)).
(2) For the purposes of subclause (1) and of clause 3002, the relevant day, in relation to an applicant, is:
(a) if the applicant held an entry permit that was valid up to and including 31 August 1994 but has not
subsequently been the holder of a substantive visa — 1 September 1994; or
(b) if the applicant became an illegal entrant before 1 September 1994 (whether or not clause 6002 in
Schedule 6 of the Migration (1993) Regulations applied or section 195 of the Act applies) and has
not, at any time on or after 1 September 1994, been the holder of a substantive visa — the day
when the applicant last became an illegal entrant; or
(c) if the applicant:
(i) ceased to hold a substantive or criminal justice visa on or after 1 September 1994; or
(ii) entered Australia unlawfully on or after 1 September 1994;
whichever is the later of:
(iii) the last day when the applicant held a substantive or criminal justice visa; or
(iv) the day when the applicant last entered Australia unlawfully; or
(d) if the last substantive visa held by the applicant was cancelled, and the Tribunal has made a
decision to set aside and substitute the cancellation decision or the Minister's decision not to
revoke the cancellation — the later of:
(i) the day when that last substantive visa ceased to be in effect; and
(ii) the day when the applicant is taken, under sections 368C, 368D and 379C of the Act, to
have been notified of the Tribunal's decision.

3003
If:
(a) the applicant has not, on or after 1 September 1994, been the holder of a substantive visa; and
(b) on 31 August 1994, the applicant was either:
(i) an illegal entrant; or
(ii) the holder of an entry permit that was not valid beyond 31 August 1994;
the Minister is satisfied that:
(c) the applicant last became an illegal entrant, or, in the case of a person referred to in subparagraph
(b)(ii), last became a person in Australia without a substantive visa, because of factors beyond the
applicant's control; and
(d) there are compelling reasons for granting the visa; and
(e) the applicant has complied substantially with the conditions that apply or applied to:
(i) the last of any entry permits held by the applicant (other than a condition of which the
applicant was in breach solely because of the expiry of the entry permit); and
(ii) any subsequent bridging visa; and
(f) the applicant would have been entitled to be granted an entry permit equivalent to a visa of the
class applied for if the applicant had applied for the entry permit immediately before last
becoming an illegal entrant or, in the case of a person referred to in subparagraph (b)(ii), if the
applicant had applied for the entry permit on 31 August 1994; and
(g) the applicant intends to comply with any conditions subject to which the visa is granted; and
(h) the last entry permit (if any) held by the applicant was not granted subject to a condition that the
holder would not, after entering Australia, be entitled to be granted an entry permit, or a further
entry permit, while the holder remained in Australia.

3004
If the applicant:
(a) ceased to hold a substantive or criminal justice visa on or after 1 September 1994; or

Case Number 1809629 Page 9 of 10

 (b) entered Australia unlawfully on or after 1 September 1994 and has not subsequently been granted
a substantive visa;
the Minister is satisfied that:
(c) the applicant is not the holder of a substantive visa because of factors beyond the applicant's
control; and
(d) there are compelling reasons for granting the visa; and
(e) the applicant has complied substantially with:
(i) the conditions that apply or applied to:
(A) the last of any entry permits held by the applicant (other than a condition of which
the applicant was in breach solely because of the expiry of the entry permit); and
(B) any subsequent bridging visa; or
(ii) the conditions that apply or applied to:
(A) the last of any substantive visas held by the applicant (other than a condition of
which the applicant was in breach solely because the visa ceased to be in effect);
and
(B) any subsequent bridging visa; and
(f) either:
(i) in the case of an applicant referred to in paragraph (a) — the applicant would have been
entitled to be granted a visa of the class applied for if the applicant had applied for the visa
on the day when the applicant last held a substantive or criminal justice visa; or
(ii) in the case of an applicant referred to in paragraph (b) — the applicant would have
satisfied the criteria (other than any Schedule 3 criteria) for the grant of a visa of the class
applied for on the day when the applicant last entered Australia unlawfully; and
(g) the applicant intends to comply with any conditions subject to which the visa is granted; and
(h) if the last visa (if any) held by the applicant was a transitional (temporary) visa, that visa was not
subject to a condition that the holder would not, after entering Australia, be entitled to be granted
an entry permit, or a further entry permit, while the holder remained in Australia.

Case Number 1809629 Page 10 of 10