• cl. 309.211 (2) of Schedule 2 to the Regulations; and
• cl.309.221 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations

MIGRATION - Partner (Provisional) (Class UF) visa - Subclass 309 (Partner (Provisional)) - genuine and continuing relationship - money transfers - joint bank accounts - shared work equipment and expenses - joint international travel - daily communication involving family - registered their relationship - decision under review remitted

Acts Interpretation Act 1901 (Cth), s 2E

Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss 5, 65

Migration Regulations 1994, Schedule 2, cls 309.211, 309.221; r 1.09

Ally v MIAC [2008] FCAFC 49

Bretag v IRT [1991] FCA 582

He v MIBP [2017] FCAFC 206

Jayasinghe v MIMA [2006] FCA 1700

1. This is an application for review of a decision made by a delegate of the Minister for Home Affairs on 22 February 2023 to refuse to grant the visa applicant a Partner (Provisional) (Class UF) visa under s 65 of the Migration Act 1958 (the Act).
2. The visa applicant applied for the visa on 4 May 2021, based on her defacto relationship with the sponsor (the review applicant). At that time, Class UF contained one subclass: Subclass 309 (Partner Provisional). The criteria for the grant of the visa are set out in Part 309 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994 (the Regulations).
3. The delegate refused to grant the visa on the basis that the visa applicant did not satisfy cl 309.211(2) of the Regulations. The delegate was not satisfied that the applicant and the review applicant met the definition for either a spouse or defacto relationship.
4. The Tribunal issued a Direction dated 6 June 2025 directing the provision of any further supporting evidence in support of the application. The review applicant complied with the Direction.
5. The **Error! Reference source not found.**sponsor is the review applicant. He appeared before the Tribunal by video on 30 July 2025 to give evidence and present submissions. The Tribunal also received oral evidence from the visa applicant who appeared by video from the Russian Federation. The Tribunal also received evidence from the following witnesses, Miss Bateeva and Mr Mezvinsky who participated by telephone.
6. The review applicant was represented, their representative attended the hearing.
7. For the following reasons, the Tribunal has concluded that the matter should be remitted for reconsideration.

1. Clause 309.211(2) requires that, at the time the visa application was made, the visa applicant is the spouse or de facto partner of an Australian citizen or Australian permanent resident or an eligible New Zealand citizen.
2. With limited exceptions that only apply in relation a decision to grant or not grant a Subclass 309 visa made on or after 20 August 2022 and before 25 November 2023, the visa applicant must continue to be the spouse or de facto partner at the time of the Tribunal's decision, unless the visa applicant meets the requirements of cl 309.221(2) or (3): cl 309.221. In the present case the visa applicant claims to be the de facto partner of the review applicant who is an Australian citizen by grant dated 27 August 2002.[1]

1. The review applicant was born in the Russian Federation in 1964. The review applicant was previously married (in 2004). According to materials in the Department file, his divorce was granted in 2018. The review applicant has three children from that previous relationship. The review applicant arrived in Australia in 2000 and is an Australian citizen by grant. The visa applicant was born in the Russian Federation in 1994. At the date of the visa application, she was 26 years of age and as of the date of decision she is 30 years of age. It is claimed that the review applicant and visa applicant committed to their relationship in July 2013, that they have spent periods living together as a defacto couple and despite physical separation since December 2017 remain in a committed ongoing relationship. The relationship was registered in South Australia in 2023. As of the date of hearing the review applicant was in Australia and the visa applicant in the Federation of Russia.

1. 'De facto partner' is defined in s 5CB of the Act, which provides that a person is in a de facto relationship with another person to whom they are not married if they have a mutual commitment to a shared life to the exclusion of all others, the relationship is genuine and continuing, the couple live together, or do not live separately and apart on a permanent basis, and the couple are not related by family: s 5CB(2).
2. In forming an opinion whether they are in a de facto relationship, consideration must be given to all of the circumstances of the relationship. This includes evidence of the financial and social aspects and the nature of the visa applicant's and sponsor's household and their commitment to each other as set out in reg 1.09A(3). Each of the specific matters contained in reg 1.09A(3) is effectively a question which must be answered: He v MIBP [2017] FCAFC 206.

Evidence about the circumstances of the relationship

1. The Tribunal observes that the review applicant has provided the Tribunal with a significant volume of documents and statements in support of the claims regarding the circumstances of the relationship. The Tribunal also observes that the review applicant and visa applicant provided credible and consistent evidence about the circumstances of their relationship which is supported by materials before the Tribunal.

1. The Tribunal has had regard to the evidence provided relating to the financial aspects of the relationship, including, joint ownership of real estate or other major assets and any joint liabilities, the extent of any pooling of financial resources, especially in relation to major financial commitments, whether one person in the relationship owes any legal obligation in respect of the other, and the basis of any sharing of the day-to-day household expenses.
2. According to written submissions and oral evidence, the review applicant and visa applicant assert that they do not jointly own any real estate or major assets; their mutual intention is should the visa is granted, the visa applicant will sell her apartment in Russia and use those funds towards the purchase of a home in Australia. They intend to purchase the unit that the review applicant is renting from his landlord; they have jointly purchased household items and furnishings for an apartment they rented whilst living together in Moscow between July 2015 to December 2017; they pool their financial resources to the extent possible through the operation of joint accounts, from which various purchases and day to day household expenses are paid. The review applicant also financially supports the visa applicant and regularly transfers funds of about $400 per month. He has gifted the visa applicant various personal and household items.
3. According to the oral evidence the review applicant is a musician and composer. He has worked in various roles in Australia and in Russia. He said that he is currently earning income from commissions for compositions which is supplemented by income as an Uber driver. The visa applicant stated that she previously worked in retail however due to the poor work conditions and with the encouragement of the review applicant she ceased working in 2018 to focus on her music and to learn English. She has recently commenced casual work in the music field but it does not generate a significant income. The review applicant and visa applicant gave consistent evidence that when they were living together, they worked together composing music and providing lyrics for a karaoke business. They pool their income and jointly meet expenses.
4. The review applicant provided photographs depicting household items which he asserts were jointly purchased, as well as various items which he states have been gifted to the visa applicant and her grandfather. Receipts were also provided for some of these purchases. This includes items such as laptops, an iPad, a synthesizer as well as travel and accommodation for a holiday to Thailand in 2013. The review applicant also states that he has purchased a second motor car (located in Australia) which will be for the visa applicant's use when she arrives in Australia.
5. The review applicant states that he financially supports the visa applicant with regular transfer of funds. He is also meeting the expenses associated with the visa application. Copies of receipts for money transfer platforms were provided evidencing regular transfers made from the review applicant to the visa applicant as well showing transfers from the review applicant's Australian bank accounts up until 2025 were provided.
6. In written submissions and in evidence provided at hearing, the review and visa applicants stated that they organise their finances through the operation of two overseas joint accounts. One being a debit account opened in 2013 and the other a credit card account. Since 2013 they both utilise these accounts to make joint purchases and expenses. The Tribunal was provided with bank statements as well as screenshots of transactions and bank cards issued in the respective names of the review and visa applicants. Currency certificates dated June 2025 for the accounts were provided. Updated transactions for the period 2024 to 2025 were also provided showing recent transactions
7. It is asserted that when they lived together, the review applicant and visa applicant met their day-to-day household expenses and rent from these joint accounts. When the review applicant returned to Australia, they continued to utilise the joint accounts. They jointly took out a loan to buy exercise equipment and studio recording equipment from these joint funds. Screenshots of transactions and receipts were provided in support of this claim.
8. It is asserted that the review applicant and visa applicant both utilise the joint credit card. Screenshots were provided showing transactions undertaken by the review applicant and visa applicant. The review applicant explained that recent sanctions has created some difficulties in the review and visa applicant managing these joint arrangements. He stated that he now transfers funds to a friend who resides in Kazakhstan who is able to transfer funds to the visa applicant. The friend provided a statement confirming that he transfers funds from the review applicant to the visa applicant.

1. The Tribunal has had regard to the evidence as to the nature of the household including joint responsibility for the care and support of children, the parties' living arrangements and any sharing of the responsibility for housework.
2. According to written and oral submissions and evidence the review applicant and visa applicant do not have any joint responsibility caring or supporting children. They lived together between July 2015 to December 2017 in a rental property located in the Moscow region. Copies of rental agreements were provided dated August 2015 and February 2016, and Resident Registration Certificates are consistent with that evidence.
3. When cohabitating, it is asserted that they did not have specific roles but did tasks together which included cooking, cleaning and shopping.
4. It is asserted that in December 2017 the review applicant returned to Australia and the visa applicant returned to live in her home town. The review applicant now rents a unit in Australia. The visa applicant initially lived with grandparents. The review applicant who is described as an orphan was granted ownership of an apartment by state guardianship authorities.
5. Oral evidence and written statements describe that the review applicant and visa applicant have been unable to live together since December 2017. Whilst separated the review applicant and visa applicant described how they are in daily contact and will often coincide daily activities such as cooking, eating meals and shopping by video. The Tribunal was provided screen shots from media platforms consistent with this. Their evidence is that their mutual intention is to live in the review applicant's unit and return to their usual household routines established when they were able to live together.

1. The Tribunal has had regard to the evidence provided in relation to the social aspects of the relationship, namely, whether the parties represented themselves to others as being in a relationship to each other, the opinion of their friends and acquaintances about the nature of the relationship and any basis on which the parties plan and undertake joint social activities.
2. The review applicant and visa applicant assert that they hold themselves out as being in a committed genuine defacto relationship. They state that they committed to their relationship in July 2013 whilst on a holiday in Thailand. The review applicant and visa applicant stated that since that date they have held themselves out being in a relationship with each other to authorities and to family and friends. They gave evidence of travel to Thailand in 2013 and of a two-month vacation where they stayed in the holiday home of friends.
3. The review applicant confirmed that he has met members of the visa applicant's family including her grandparents and her stepsister. The visa applicant stated that she has been introduced to the review applicant's children through regular video calls. The Tribunal observes that the review applicant and visa applicant were each able to provide a clear account and description of each other's family composition and background including providing names and circumstances of each other's family. The visa applicant described how the review applicant's brother died in a motor car accident, and she sent funds to the family.
4. A significant number of photographs were provided to the Tribunal and also are included in the Department's file depicting the review applicant and visa applicant together in various locations in Russia and in Thailand. The evidence provided by the review applicant and visa applicant is that since living in different countries, they continue to communicate on a daily basis including regular video calls which sometimes includes member of each other's family. They also engage in video calls to celebrate special occasions. Screen shots depicting these types of contact were provided to the Tribunal consistent with that evidence.
5. Third party statements and Form 888 statutory declarations have been provided to the Department and the Tribunal. These statements assert that from direct observation and interaction, the declarants believe the review applicant and visa applicant to be in a genuine and continuing relationship. These statements were made in 2021, 2023 and 2025 and include statements provided by:

a) The review applicant's step mother who resides in the Russia Federation. She states that she met the visa applicant in June 2017 when she spent a week staying in the review and visa applicants' home > > b) A former classmate of the review applicant Mr Vaulin and his spouse Ms Bateeva who reside in Russia and state that they regularly spent time with the review and visa applicant between 2014 to 2017. > > c) The visa applicant's grandmother who states that she met the review applicant in 2011 when he came to visit the visa applicant and has observed the review and visa applicant together when they were both living in Russia. A joint statement from both grandparents also describing how their granddaughter met the review applicant, their introduction to the review applicant, time spent together and ongoing contact through regular video calls. > > d) Friend of the review applicant Ms Bakyres stating that they met in Australia. She was introduced to the visa applicant in 2013 over video whilst the review applicant was in Russia. As a friend she has been told about the relationship and is personally aware that the relationship has continued since the review applicant has returned to Australia. Updated statement dated 27 June 2025 confirming that to her knowledge the relationship has been maintained. > > e) Friend of review applicant Mr Mezhvinsky who resides in Australia. He has met the visa applicant via the internet and has observed the review and visa applicant interact through video contacts. This person provided an updated statement dated 30 June 2025 stating that to his knowledge the relationship continues and has been maintained. > > f) Friend of the review applicant, Ms Wong business owner in South Australia states that she has known the review applicant since 2018 and shared musical interest and developed a friendship. States that they learned of the relationship and was introduced to the visa applicant via Skype and video calls.

6. Witnesses appeared at the hearing to provide evidence attesting to their knowledge of the relationship and expressed the opinion that it is genuine and continuing.
7. Mr Mezvinsky gave evidence consistent with statements he has provided to the Department and to the Tribunal. He described himself as a long-time friend of the review applicant and also his landlord. He said he has been introduced to the visa applicant over video calls when the review applicant was in Russia in 2013. Since then, through his ongoing friendship with the review applicant has been present and observed communication between the review and visa applicants. He said this was particularly the case when the review applicant stayed with him for a period. He said that through regular conversations with the review applicant he is aware that the review and visa applicant are in a continuing relationship and of their continuing efforts to be reunited.
8. Ms Badeeva also gave evidence with the assistance of the interpreter. She resides in the Russian Federation. She explained that she met the review applicant through her husband who went to school with the review applicant. She said that she and her husband were introduced to the visa applicant and have been aware of their relationship since its inception. She described how they visited the review applicant and visa applicant when they were living together and also spent time socially with them. She said that the visa and review applicant stayed with them in their summer house for two months. The witness said that in her opinion based upon these interactions and ongoing contacts with the review and visa applicants they are in a genuine continuing relationship. The Tribunal notes that Ms Badeeva's evidence is consistent with her statements and declarations previously provided to the Department and to the Tribunal.
9. The review applicant provided a copy of his will naming the visa applicant as one of his main beneficiaries together with his children. The visa applicant has also provided a copy of her will naming the review applicant as her beneficiary. The review applicant and visa applicant have also registered their relationship, and a copy of that registration issued by South Australian authorities pursuant to the _Relationship Register Act 2016 (South Australia)._was included in documents provided to the Tribunal it is dated 9 August 2023.

1. The Tribunal has had regard to the evidence provided in relation to the nature of the parties' 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.
2. The Tribunal observes that detailed and consistent evidence has been provided regarding the development of the relationship and its circumstances over time.
3. According to written statements and oral evidence, the review and visa applicants assert that they first met through an online music contest in 2009 which led to them developing a music collaboration. This musical collaboration eventually led to them meeting in October 2011. The review applicant stated that by this time his relationship with his former spouse had ended and he decided to travel to Russia for a work opportunity but also to meet the visa applicant. He travelled to the visa applicant's home and met her grandparents. During this initial period, he and the visa applicant would meet whenever time permitted. The visa applicant was completing her studies and living with her grandparents.
4. After returning to Australia in 2013 for a few months, the review applicant and visa applicant met in Thailand for a holiday paid for by the review applicant. It was during that holiday that they committed to their relationship and decided that they wanted to be together. They travelled back to Russia and continued to live in different locations due to work and study commitments, but their relationship continued to develop through regular meetings. The review applicant returned to Australia for an extended period in 2014, he explained that he wanted to spend time with his children before traveling back to the Russian Federation in July 2015. The visa applicant graduated, and she moved to Moscow where she and the review applicant commenced living together for the next two and half years. When living together they collaborated on and derived an income from music projects.
5. The review applicant returned to Australia in late December 2017. He said at that point the intention was that he would return to finalise his divorce, spend time with the children and commence the partner visa process. The review applicant said that his divorce took about a year to finalise, and he left his interest in the former matrimonial home and shared assets to his ex-wife. He was left without financial means and borrowed funds from friends to reestablish himself. Since then, the financial focus has been on securing a partner visa and this together with travel restrictions arising from the pandemic has resulted in the review applicant and visa applicant not being able to afford to physically reunite. The cost of saving up meant that he and the visa applicant were not financially able to afford to commence the visa process and engage a representative until 2021. The Tribunal observes that this account of the relationship history is consistent with the review applicant's movement record.
6. The review applicant and visa applicant both gave evidence of the impact of the visa refusal. They said that it caused them both to feel very despondent, but they are committed to their relationship and to the process. The evidence of witnesses at hearing also spoke to the impact that the visa refusal had on both the review and visa applicant and their determination to be together.
7. The evidence at hearing is that they maintain daily contact and through technology share as much of their day-to-day life as is possible. Extensive call logs and translated text messages and video contacts depict regular daily contact and the review and visa applicant sharing day to day activities such as shopping, cooking as well as acknowledging events such as birthdays, Easter, New Year and anniversaries. The evidence at hearing is that they support each other and provide companionship through these daily contacts and by encouraging each other in this process.
8. The review applicant states that he and the visa applicant have already established their own traditions and that their bond is based upon love, mutual respect and support. The review applicant and visa applicant provided consistent evidence about their future plans which includes starting a karaoke business, buying a home and having children. The review applicant and visa applicant in their respective responses to Tribunal questions said that their age difference is not something that has ever been a consideration in their relationship. They have strong mutual interests (particularly in music) and are committed to each other. They both gave evidence that they come from similar backgrounds and experiences both having been brought up by their grandparents.

1. In this matter, having had the opportunity of reviewing the materials and hearing the evidence provided at hearing, the Tribunal makes the following findings of fact.
2. In relation to the financial aspects of the relationship, the review applicant and visa applicant:

a) do not jointly own any real estate or significant assets > > b) jointly purchased household items whilst living together between 2015 to 2017 > > c) have jointly taken out loans to fund the purchase of various household items and electronics > > d) since 2013 have jointly managed their financial arrangements through the operation of two joint bank accounts (a credit and debit account) and pool their financial resources > > e) when living together they utilised these accounts to jointly meet day to day household expenses. Since living separately, they continue to utilise joint accounts to meet their expenses and jointly pool assets to the extent possible. The review applicant regularly transfers funds to the visa applicant; and > > f) have expressed a mutual desire to jointly purchase a home should a visa be granted which will be funded from joint funds and the proceeds of the sale of the visa applicant's apartment.

3. In relation to the household aspects, the review applicant and visa applicant:

a) do not share responsibility for the care and support of children > > b) lived together in rental properties between July 2015 until the end of December 2017 > > c) when living together they operated as a single household and shared day to day household tasks and chores > > d) have not had the opportunity to live in the same household since the review applicant returned to Australia in December 2017 > > e) communicate daily and often coincide daily household activities such as preparation of meals and shopping via video; and > > f) have expressed a mutual intention that, should the visa be granted, they will resume living together in the same household and continue to share day to day responsibilities for housework in the same way when living together in Russia.

4. In relation to the social aspects of the relationship, the review applicant and visa applicant:

a) have held themselves out as being in a relationship since making a commitment to their relationship in July 2013 > > b) are acknowledged by friends and family as being in an ongoing and genuine relationship > > c) when living together they engaged in regular social activities which included entertaining and visiting friends > > d) travelled together on a holiday to Thailand in 2013 and in 2017 spent two months on vacation staying in a holiday home belonging to mutual friends > > e) have not had the opportunity to make plans and undertake joint social activities since the review applicant returned to Australia in December 2017 however maintain daily contact and communication as evidenced by an extensive call log and screen shots of video call > > f) registered their relationship on 9 August 2023 pursuant to the Relationship Register Act 2016 (South Australia) > > g) have executed wills naming each other as beneficiaries; and > > h) family members and friends have expressed opinions that the review and visa applicants are in a committed and genuine relationship and have been since mid- 2013

5. In relation to the nature of the commitment to one another, the review applicant and visa applicant:

a) first met online in 2009 through a musical competition > > b) met in person in October 2011 > > c) committed to a relationship in July 2013 > > d) lived together from mid-2015 until late December 2017 > > e) registered their relationship in South Australia on 9 August 2023 > > f) have maintained daily contact and communication through which they provide each other emotional support and companionship; and > > g) share joint plans which includes having children, buying a home and starting a business.

1. The Tribunal is required to consider all relevant circumstances and evidence of the relationship in determining whether, on balance, the requirements that define a genuine and continuing relationship and a mutual commitment to a shared life to the exclusion of all others are met, where the parties are living together or not living separately and apart on a permanent basis. In this regard, the Tribunal must consider relevant evidence of events that have occurred after the date of application. Such evidence is relevant if it tends to logically show the existence or non-existence of factors relevant to the determination. [2]
2. Having had the opportunity of observing and testing the review applicant, hearing and testing the visa applicant's evidence, taking into consideration the evidence of witnesses, the materials and documents before the Tribunal, as well as its findings of fact, the Tribunal is satisfied that the evidence on balance supports the conclusion that as at the time of application and time of decision, the review applicant and the visa applicant have a mutual commitment to a shared life to the exclusion of all others and that it is a genuine and continuing relationship, they do not live separately and apart on a permanent basis and are not related by family.[3]
3. In coming to this conclusion, the Tribunal has found that the review applicant and visa applicant have been in a committed relationship which as of the date of this decision spans some 12 years from when they first made a commitment during their holiday in Thailand in 2013. Since then, they have to the extent possible pooled financial resources and jointly met expenses from those combined resources. They have had a period of shared living arrangements and despite currently living in different countries, the evidence conveys that to the extent possible the review and visa applicants continue to operate as a joint household through daily online contacts and sharing of day-to-day events and household tasks and joint decision making. In the Tribunal's view there is also evidence that family and friends have consistently maintained an opinion which recognises the review and visa applicants as being in a genuine and continuing defacto relationship. In the Tribunal's assessment the evidence and their demeanour at hearing depicts two people who have shared interests and a strong desire to be together. The Tribunal also observes the large number of materials which have been provided to corroborate the oral evidence and statements made regarding the relationship.
4. The Tribunal is also satisfied that, the review applicant and visa applicant have lived together and not separately or apart on a permanent basis. In reaching this conclusion, the Tribunal notes that for the reasons as noted whilst they have not been able to reside in the same country since December 2017, the evidence supports a conclusion that this is not a permanent arrangement.
5. For these reasons, the Tribunal is satisfied and finds that at the time of application and at the time of decision that the review applicant and the visa applicant have a mutual commitment to a shared life to the exclusion of all others, the relationship is genuine and continuing, the couple live together, or do not live separately and apart on a permanent basis and that they are not related by family (5CB(4) of the Act).
6. The Tribunal is also satisfied from the evidence and documents contained in the Department's file that the review applicant is an Australian citizen who was the defacto partner of the visa applicant at the time of application and continues to meet the definition of defacto partner.
7. On the basis of the above the Tribunal is satisfied that the requirements of s 5CB(2) are met at the time the visa application was made and at the time of this decision.
8. The Tribunal is satisfied that the criteria in cl 309.211(2) and cl 309.221 of schedule 2 of the regulations are met.

Are the additional criteria for a de facto relationship met?

1. Persons claiming to be in a de facto relationship for a partner visa must also meet the additional criteria in reg 2.03A. Both members of the couple must be at least 18 years old: reg 2.03A(2). In this case, at the time of application, the applicant and the sponsor were at least 18 years old.
2. The applicant must have been in the de facto relationship for at least the 12-month period ending immediately before the date of the application: reg 2.03A(3). In this case the date of application was 4 May 2021. This requirement will not apply in limited circumstances, such as: where the de facto relationship has been registered under a relevant State or Territory law (for applications made on or after 9 November 2009); where the applicant can establish compelling and compassionate circumstances for the grant of the visa; or in certain circumstances where the sponsor held, holds or is applying for a permanent humanitarian visa.
3. The applicant has provided evidence that the relationship is registered under the Relationship Register Act 2016 (South Australia) which is a registered relationship within the meaning of section 2E of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901 (Cth): reg 2.03A(5). As such the 12-month requirement does not apply. The Tribunal notes that in any event on the evidence it is satisfied that the review applicant and visa applicant met the definition of a defacto relationship for a period at least 12 months ending before the date of the application.
4. The Tribunal is satisfied that the visa applicant meets the additional criteria prescribed in reg 2.03A.
5. Given the findings above, the appropriate course is to set aside the decision under review and remit the application for the visa to the Minister to consider the remaining criteria for a Subclass 309 visa.

1. The Tribunal remits the application for a Partner (Provisional) (Class UF) visa for reconsideration with the order that the visa applicant meets the following criteria for a Subclass 309 Partner (Provisional) visa:
   • cl. 309.211(2) of Schedule 2 to the Regulations; and
   • cl.309.221 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations

[1] A copy of the Certificate of Australian Citizenship was located in the Department file.

[2] Ally v MIAC [2008] FCAFC 49 at [32]-[35]; Jayasinghe v MIMA [2006] FCA 1700 at [35], citing MIEA v Pochi (1980) 4 ALD 139 at [24] per Deane J, which held that evidence of subsequent events may be taken into account if it 'tends to logically show the existence or non-existence of' the relationship at that particular time; and see also Bretag v IRT [1991] FCA 582 at [13]-[15].

[3] The Tribunal noted identification documents included in the Department file.