1. The applicant appealed the delegate's decision to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT).
2. The AAT held a hearing on 31 October 2018. The applicant gave evidence at that hearing as did Mr Hassan, Ms Thinh Kim Thi Nguyen, and Mr MD Mokaddes Ali.
3. The AAT's decision records that the Department had received a number of dob ins claiming, among other things, that the applicant and sponsor's relationship was not genuine. The AAT put the dob ins to the applicant at the hearing. As she did at the Department interview, the applicant denied these allegations.
4. The AAT decision records that some of the dob in information related to the nature and timing of the sponsor's relationship with his prior partner, Ms Rahman. The AAT was not satisfied the anonymous allegations or the Department's interview with Ms Rahman could be relied on in respect of claims that the sponsor and Ms Rahman had travelled together, nor was the AAT satisfied that the allegations that the applicant was a sex worker or that money was exchanged for sponsoring the applicant was supported.
5. However, the AAT noted concerns regarding the account of the nature of the relationship between the applicant and sponsor at the time of application including on the basis of inconsistent evidence regarding when the sponsor's relationship with his previous partner, Ms Rahman, had ceased.
6. Ultimately the AAT was not satisfied that the applicant and sponsor were in a genuine spousal relationship at the time of application and therefore the applicant did not satisfy cl 820.221(2).
7. On 20 March 2019 the AAT affirmed the delegate's decision.

1. On 15 April 2019 the applicant appealed the AAT's decision to the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Court).
2. On 31 October 2024 the Court ordered the matter be remitted to the Tribunal for reconsideration.[2] In summary, the Court found that the failure to consider the fact the applicant was pregnant with a child of the relationship at the time the application was made in considering the nature of the commitment of the parties to a shared life amounted to jurisdictional error.

1. On 1 October 2025 the Tribunal issued a direction for the applicant to provide the Tribunal the sponsor's death certificate, a statement describing the relationship, any additional evidence relied upon in support of the claimed relationship at the time of application and time of decision, and the additional evidence filed in the Court.
2. The applicant complied with the direction and provided the Tribunal with evidence spanning a number of years. This included the following material submitted to the Court:
   • Affidavit of Dolly Rahman dated 10 February 2022, in which Ms Rahman stated that she made untrue allegations about the applicant's relationship with Mr Hassan;
   • Evidence relating to the applicant's son, Master O's, autism diagnosis;
   • Mr Hassan's will;
   • Letters from the South Australian Bangladeshi community;
   • Evidence of Mr Hassan's medical issue (psoriasis); and
   • Statutory declaration of Mr Hassan, dated 25 August 2023.
3. Ms Doan also provided written submissions dated 24 November 2025 and additional evidence including:
   • Two updated statutory declarations dated 17 November 2025 annexing information regarding the couple's housing arrangements, utility bills and Master O's care and treatment, and providing details of the sponsor's death;
   • A statement from Ms Do Thi Minh Thu, the applicant's mother, dated 17 November 2025, including screen shots of messages exchanged with Mr Hassan when he was alive.
4. As noted above, the applicant appeared at the Tribunal at the hearing on 25 November 2025. No other witnesses were called, however Ms Doan indicated Ms Do was available by phone (from Vietnam) if required.
5. Master O attended the hearing with the applicant and remained throughout. He did not give evidence. He is now almost 10 years old and according to the medical evidence has delayed speech. His presentation at the hearing was consistent with the medical evidence which indicates he has a clinical diagnosis of Level 3 Autism.

1. The Tribunal has before it the departmental file relating to the visa application. There is a significant amount of adverse information contained on the departmental file, all of which has already been disclosed to the applicant by the Department and the AAT.
2. The Department's file contains 2 certificates dated 18 September 2017 and 16 January 2018 notifying the Tribunal that s 375A of the Migration Act applies to documents or information contained in specified folios of the file because its disclosure would be contrary to the public interest.
3. The s 375A certificates were revoked by the Department on 8 October 2018.
4. The Department's file also contains 3 certificates dated 8 October 2018, 12 December 2024, and 21 October 2025 notifying the Tribunal that s 376(1)(b) of the Migration Act applies to documents or information contained in its file because its disclosure would be contrary to the public interest. Under s 376, the Tribunal may, if it thinks appropriate, after having regard to any advice given to it by the Secretary of the Department, disclose the material to the applicant or another person.
5. Certificates issued under s 376 mean that the Tribunal may, for the purposes of the exercise of its powers in conducting its review, have regard to any matter contained in the documents that are subject to the certificates issued in accordance with s 376 of the Migration Act. The Tribunal may, if it thinks it is appropriate to do so, disclose any matter contained in the documents of the information to the applicant.
6. The s 376 certificates dated 8 October 2018 and 12 December 2024 were revoked on 21 October 2025, and the 376 certificate dated 21 October 2025 was revoked on 4 November 2025. Another s 376 certificate was placed on the file dated 4 November 2025.
7. On 10 November 2025 the Tribunal notified the applicant that the Department file contained two certificates issued under s 375A of the Migration Act and six certificates issued under s 376.
8. At that time both s 375A certificates had been revoked by the Department, and 5 of 6 s 376 certificates had been revoked. The Tribunal's letter advised the applicant that she did not need to do anything in relation to the revoked certificates.
9. The Tribunal's letter advised that one valid s 376 certificate, dated 4 November 2025, remained on the file. The letter advised that the certificate issued under s 376 meant that the Tribunal may, for the purposes of the exercise of its powers in conducting its review, have regard to any matter contained in the documents that are subject to the certificates issued in accordance with s 376 of the Migration Act. The letter advised that the Tribunal may also, if it thinks it is appropriate to do so, disclose any matter contained in the documents of the information to the applicant.
10. In relation to the information covered by the remaining s 376 certificate, the letter noted that the certificate indicates that the disclosure of this information would be contrary to the public interest because this information was given to the Minister, or to an officer of the Department, in confidence, and section 375A does not apply to this information. The information was provided as an allegation in circumstances where the provider of the information has not consented to disclosure to any other person and if disclosed, could have potential to identify the source of the information and could lead to injury or damage to members of the community.
11. The Tribunal's letter advised that it had formed the preliminary view that the certificate dated 4 November 2025 was valid, and invited the applicant to provide written submissions on the validity of the certificate by 24 November 2025.
12. The Tribunal's letter noted that its records indicate that the gist of some of the material covered by the s 376 certificate dated 8 October 2018 (which is now revoked) was put to the applicant by the AAT at her hearing on 31 October 2018. As indicated at that time, the material covered by the certificate includes 'dob in' information which alleges that the applicant had set up a 'contract marriage' with the sponsor, that she is a sex worker, and that she had defrauded the tax office and Centrelink.
13. The letter indicated that the information covered by this certificate also refers to 'dob in' information which alleges that the applicant's relationship with Mr Hassan was contrived, noting some of the documents covered by the November 2025 certificate are duplicates of the documents covered by the certificate dated 8 October 2018.
14. The Tribunal invited the applicant to make submissions on whether the Tribunal should exercise its discretion to disclose the material covered by the non-disclosure certificate, should it find the certificate is valid either in writing or at the hearing scheduled for 25 November 2025. The applicant responded in writing and orally at the hearing. In her written submissions the applicant claimed that all the accusations were untrue and referred to later statements by the assumed writer of the dob ins, Ms Rahman, that the accusations were untrue. The applicant did not make any written submissions in relation to the validity of the certificates or the release of the material. The applicant responded at the hearing that she had no submissions to make on the validity of the certificate or the release of the documents. She indicated she understood the nature of the allegations raised in the material and denied her relationship with Mr Hassan was contrived and said Ms Rahman had said things about them in the past.
15. The applicant's evidence on the allegations of a contrived relationship are dealt with further below.

1. As noted above, there are a number of allegations contained on the Department file regarding the genuineness of the relationship.
2. In short, the 'dob is' allege that Mr Hassan is not in a genuine relationship with Mrs Doan, and in fact continues to be in a relationship with his former partner, Ms Rahman. THe information is relevant to the review because the definition of "spouse" in the Act requires that at the time of the visa application the parties had a mutual commitment to a shared life as husband and wife to the exclusion of all others.
3. There was a significant amount of adverse information on the Department file to this effect.
4. At the hearing I noted for the Applicant that the adverse information had been put to her in detail by the AAT at her hearing before it. She acknowledged she was awareof the allegations.
5. The Tribunal put the allegations to the applicant at the hearing pursuant s s359A of the Act.
6. In broad terms the information put to Ms Doan at the hearing was that allegations received by the Department over a number of years alleged that:
   • She a prostitute and has a prostitution business with Mr Hassan;
   • She has set up a contract marriage with Mustaque Hassan;
   • Mr Hassan has a skin disease that results in a sexual disability;
   • They have defrauded the tax office and Centrelink;
   • He is very sick and is living in the United States;
   • Mr Hassan has two wives;
   • He married an Asian girl [Mrs Doan] and has two wives;
   • Ms Doan gave Mr Hassan money for the visa but Mr Hassan is sick and lives with his wife [Ms Rahman];
   • Mr Hassan lives one month with Dolly Rahman and one month with Mrs Doan;
   • Mr Hassan took money from his staff to get 457 visas and this is why he has an immigration bar;
   • Mr Hassan has another contract marriage in New Zealand;
   • Mrs Doan worked with the informant at Curry Express and runs a prostitution business with other Vietnamese girls in Surfers Paradise;
   • After work Mr Hassan takes her to clients' apartments for sex, and she has sex with Mr Hassan;
   • He has three homes on the Gold Coast;
   • He visited Vietnam with Mrs Doan to get money from her family.
7. Ms Doan acknowledged she knew about the said that she does not know where all these allegations come from. She was visibly distressed by the repeated allegations that she is a prostitute. She said it impacted her honour and was offensive. She acknowledged that the APplciant had properties in Queensland but that these had been given to Ms Rahman and Fadin for income. She said she and Mr Hassan went to Vietnam
8. Ms Doan said Mr Hassan was in a previous relationship with Ms Rahman and used to live with her but was not married to her. She explained that Mr Hassan had continued a relationship with Fardin including taking him on a trip overseas because he was his father and she supported that relationship. I note this evidence was consistent with departmental travel records.
9. Ms Doan said that the information was the result of a jealous former partner.
10. I note that the evidence submitted to the Court and later to the Tribunal included a statutory declaration from Ms Rahman dated 10 February 2022. In that declaration, Ms Rahman states:

I am writing this declaration to inform that I was the person who sent all the allegations from 15th September 2016 to 22nd November 2018 during Mrs Thi Diem Hand Doan's Visa Application process. But those allegations were not true. I did that because of my jealousy. That time I was madly love Mustaque Hassan who was my ex partner even though we did not live together anymore at that time. That was why I did not want Mrs Thi's Application to be successful . I understand my action was wrong and I feel regretful for what I did. > > Now I decide to put everything behind and I know that Mrs Thi and Mr Mustaque Hassan still live happily together until now and I do not want to interfere their family mater anymore. Moreover we still keep in touch as friends. I hope this statutory declaration can clear some information that relate to Mrs Thi's case application. Finally i confirm to withdraw all the allegation which i sent to the Department of immigration and Administrative Appeals Tribunal relating to Mrs Thi Diem Hang Doan visa case. Should you need any 'further information please do not hesitate to contact me.

11. At the hearing I asked Ms Doan about the statement and how it had been obtained and Ms Doan said Mr Hassan had contacted Ms Rahman to ask her to make a statement after the visa was refused and they were challenging this in the Court. I asked is Ms Rahman would give evidence before the Tribunal and she said she didn't think so because of the dispute over Mr Hassan's will.
12. On balance and given the history of accusations by Ms Rahman against Ms Doan and the current dispute over Mr Hassan's estate, I considered any evidence from Ms Rahman was unlikely to be able to be given much weight.
13. I accept she retracted the allegations, which is consistent with the account of the relationship given in the materials.
14. I am not satisfied that the allegations can be relied on and do not place weight on them in assessing the genuineness of the relationship.
15. The AAT decision made reference to the fact that other documents that were provided to support the application indicated that at the time of the application on 16 September 2015, Mr Hassan was in an ongoing relationship with Ms Rahman. This included a statement dated 4 March 2016 which provided to the Department that gives an address of Arun Drive for Mr Hassan, It states:

I was the fulltime cook at the Biggera restaurant. My wife does all the administration work for the business as well as hiring staff and managing staff. I estimate that as a percentage of my duties I would spend the full 100% cooking. It is the one thing I know. All other aspects of the business are managed by my wife.... > > I am constantly scratching due to extreme itchiness. I cannot concentrate, I cannot sleep and I find myself angry with life. I have told my wife that maybe I should think of suicide because my life is not worth living.

16. It was apparently an unsigned draft. Given the nature of that document, I do not place weight on it as evidence of an ongoing de factor or spousal relationship with Ms Rehman at the time of application for the visa. While the AAT decision records that Mr Hassan said the person who took the statement came to take the statement from him at Arun Drive and therefore put this as his address. It is difficult to understand why he would be at Arun Drive in March 2016 when he states he separated from Ms Rahman in 2013. He said the person who took the statement knew that Ms Rahman was not his wife. Mr Hassan did not deny he made the statements. The Tribunal noted that the AAT decision also recorded that there were a number of other documents in the Department file that record Mr Hassan's address as Arun Drive. These include letters in regard to his income protection insurance dated 2 July 2015 and from his doctor dated 27 February 2015. Mr Hassan said he did not change his address with the doctor. He said he had some mail going to the Arun Drive address, including rates notices.
17. I note I am unable to test these matters with Mr Hassan. The evidence was that he maintained an interest in properties and restaurants in Queensland that he operated with Ms Raham until at least April 2017 when the property settlement was agreed. The dispute over the Will and Ms Doan's evidence regarding Mr Hassan's ongoing interests in Queensland suggest there may have been an interest in these properties at the time of his death, giving rise to the challenge over the terms of the will.
18. In any event, given all the circumstances of the relationship at the time the Tribunal is making its decision, detailed further below, I do not place significant weigh on either the allegations sourced from Ms Rahman or evidence in relation to ongoing property interests in Queensland as suggesting Mr Hassan lacked a mutual commitment to a shared life as the spouse of Ms Doan.

1. The applicant offered the following account of the background of the relationship, which having considered all the circumstances I accept to be accurate.
2. The sponsor, Mr Mustaque Hassan, was born in Bangladesh in 1969 and arrived in Australia in 1996. That same year he entered into a relationship with Dolly Rahman. They were never validly married but had a son, Mstr F, in April 2004. Evidence indicates that lived together in Queensland where they owned several properties and two restaurants. The sponsor claimed that he and Ms Rahman separated in 2013, though a financial agreement dated April 2017 says they separated in January 2017. The sponsor's separation with Ms Rahman in 2013 was consistent with Ms Doan's evidence before me.
3. The applicant first arrived in Australia on a Student visa in August 2012. Later that month the applicant met the sponsor when she attended his restaurant for a job interview. She said he told her about the relationship with Ms Rahman in 2012. At that stage he was living with Ms Rahman. She said the relationship ceased when she started to know Mr Hassan. He moved out of the house he sharded with Ms Rahman into another property he owned on the Gold Coast in mid-2013. The applicant and sponsor started seeing each other in early 2014. The parties moved in together in October 2014 and claimed to have committed to a shared life together on 24 December 2014.
4. The applicant and sponsor married on 15 July 2015. That marriage was registered 21 July 2015. The applicant told me they skipped an engagement because she was pregnant.
5. The sponsor had a skin problem, later diagnosed as severe psoriasis, which the applicant described as 'stressful' for the couple. The applicant explained that she massaged his back as it was the worst affected area, and she accompanied him to doctors appointments and supported him in a diet to improve the condition. The sponsor said his condition was at its worst during 2014 - 2016. Speaking of the applicant's support in a statutory declaration dated 25 August 2023 the sponsor said the applicant was 'the only one to look after me by massaging me almost every night and we went to seek different skin specialists to find treatment for me. I know [the applicant] truly love me'.
6. In January 2016 the parties' son, Master O, was born in Queensland. The sponsor sponsored the applicant's mother to come to Australia to help the couple take care of Master O, and the applicant described herself as feeling 'touched and happy'.
7. The couple moved to Adelaide, South Australia at the end of 2016 and around May 2017 the family moved to an address in North Adelaide.
8. The applicant testified that the sponsor had reached a financial settlement with Ms Rahman in 2017 giving her a house and leaving her and the sponsor's older son to manage the restaurants.
9. A few months after moving to Adelaide, the applicant and sponsor went to Vietnam to visit the applicant's family. Once they returned the applicant commenced working part time and was responsible for taking Master O to daycare. The sponsor sometimes helped the applicant bath Master O and cooked Bangladeshi meals for her. As a family they went for walks, went to the beach on weekends, and ate at Vietnamese and Afghan restaurants. They joined the South Australia Bangladeshi Community Association (SABCA) and attended events once or twice a year. At the hearing the applicant told me the sponsor helped with Master O once he was at school.
10. When Master O was almost 3 years old and had not yet spoken, the applicant and sponsor took him for an assessment, and he was diagnosed with Autism Spectrum Disorder Level 3 in 2020. After receiving his diagnosis, the applicant stopped working outside the home to care for Master O and the sponsor worked at a restaurant. The applicant took Master O to speech and occupational therapists around once or twice a week, and on weekends the applicant and sponsor took Master O to playgrounds or friends' houses.
11. In April 2021 the family moved to a home in Prospect, South Australia. The sponsor was receiving injections for his psoriasis every 8 weeks and his condition improved, and he was able to return to work. The applicant reported that Master O's speech improved and he was able to speak in short sentences.
12. In May 2024 the sponsor suddenly passed away, and the applicant said this left her heartbroken and deeply grieved. She said that Master O was not aware of his father's death, which made the applicant even more upset and the situation more painful, and she told Master O that the sponsor 'slept in a garden' to comfort him. The applicant that 'if he had not passed away, we will live happily ever after.' The applicant told the Tribunal that Mr Hassan died suddenly at their home. A Muslim funeral service was held on the Gold Coast and organised by Mr Hassan's older son, Fardin. Master O attended with her. Ms Raham was also in attendance. She said the funeral was held in Queensland because Fardin wanted to hold the service there and while she didn't think it would have been what Mr Hassan wanted she allowed it for Fardin's sake.
13. In a statutory declaration dated 17 November 2025 the applicant said that following the sponsor's passing she has helped manage his restaurant while she waits for the Public Trustee to complete their role in finalising her husband's assets according to his will. The will is being contested by Fardin and Ms Rahman. While the applicant did not understand the details, the Tribunal infers from the evidence that some of the assets included in the 'settlement' with Ms Rahman, including a property and the restaurants in Queensland, were in Mr Hassan's name and left to the applicant is in his most recent will.
14. Master O attends a 'communication specialist school' which supports students with complex communication needs. Each morning the applicant brushes his teeth and prepares his breakfast. He is able to feed himself but is slow. He goes to school on the school bus and the applicant picks him up in the afternoon. The applicant takes him to speech therapist and occupational therapist appointments each week and takes him to a psychologist.

Whether the parties are in a spouse or de facto relationship

1. 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 be the spouse of the sponsor, who is an Australian citizen.
2. '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 a married couple 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).
3. In forming an opinion about these matters, I must have regard 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 reg 1.15A(3), which is extracted in the attachment to this decision. Each of the specific matters contained in reg 1.15A(3) is effectively a question which must be answered: He v MIBP [2017] FCAFC 206.

1. If the parties were validly married, they may meet the requirements of a married relationship, but not a de facto relationship. The parties provided a certificate of marriage registered 21 July 2015, noting that the applicant and sponsor married on 15 July 2015. There is nothing before the Tribunal to indicate that this marriage is not valid. On the evidence, 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).

Are the other requirements for a spouse relationship met?

1. The Tribunal had before it the Department's file relating to the application and the delegate's decision. In addition, the Tribunal had the information provided to the AAT on the previous review including the recordings of that evidence and the summary of the evidence provided in the AAT's decision affirming the visa refusal. I also had before me additional information which was submitted to the Court in support of the judicial review application and the decision of the Court remitting the matter to the Tribunal. Additional material, including submissions from the applicant, was provided to the Tribunal prior to the hearing, and more material received after the hearing.
2. The Tribunal notes that it has had the benefit of additional documentary evidence in considering the application. The Tribunal notes that limited material was submitted to the Department in support of the initial application for the visa. Further, and as noted above, there was a significant amount of adverse material on the file challenging the genuineness of the relationship. The applicant suggested most of that material was submitted by Ms Rahman for reasons due to her distress at the breakdown of her relationship with Mr Hassan, and later due to disputes over the assets of Ms Rahman and Mr Hassan, which it appears remained either in Mr Hassan's name or jointly. I accept Ms Rahman was the source of the allegations and that her motivations were personal as reflected in her later retraction of the allegations when the matter was before the Court.
3. In addition to the further context of the adverse material before me, significant additional material was submitted to the Tribunal by the applicant updating her circumstances. This included photographs, medical records, records of correspondence with family members and residential and financial records including tax and Centrelink records. All of this material was consistent with the applicant's account of the relationship.
4. Further, it was clear from the material and consistent with records of Mr Hassan's death that he and Ms Doan were living together with Master O as a family at the time of his death. This was around 8 years after they wed and, in the Tribunal's view, provided strong support for the claim the applicant and the sponsor were living in a genuine spousal relationship.
5. The background of the parties' relationship has been outlined above. This summary is based on the testimony of the applicant before the Tribunal as well as on the supporting material initially submitted with the visa application and the application for review. That material includes written and oral evidence from the sponsor.
6. The AAT decision largely reflects concerns regarding the nature of the mutual commitment to a shared life to the exclusion of all others at the time of application. This was because there was contradictory evidence from Mr Hassan about when his relationship with his former partner, Ms Raham, ceased. Those concerns were not without foundation. However, the Tribunal is no longer able to test Mr Hassan's account and to the extent there is doubt about his commitment at that time, I give the benefit of that doubt to Ms Doan, noting the evidence of a consistent spousal relationship since that time. It is certainly possible that Ms Rahman was led to believe the relationship was ongoing during a period when Mr Hassan was planning a new life with Ms Doan. I consider it is possible that he did so without compromising his commitment to a life as husband and wife with Ms Doan to the exclusion of all others including Ms Raham.
7. To the extent the evidence of the date of separation in context of the financial settlement with Ms Rahman in 2017 was different to that provided by Mr Hassan and Ms Doan in the accounts of their relationship, I find that difference related to the aspects of the financial settlement and prefer the account provided by the applicant which is supported by documentary evidence that the couple was living together well before that settlement date, in 2014, and by the evidence of the applicant's mother who lived with them for a number of months in 2016 after Master O was born.
8. The Tribunal has had regard to the evidence provided as to whether the parties represent themselves to others as being married to each other, the opinion of the parties' friends and acquaintances about the nature of the relationship and any basis on which the parties plan and undertake joint social activities. The parties have provided supporting material including photographs in group settings, correspondence addressed to both parties, third party statements from friends and family supporting the genuineness of the relationship and their account of their history together and evidencing joint social activities.
9. The evidence portrays a couple who were recognised as being in a genuine and committed relationship by their friends, families and acquaintances. The Tribunal finds that, based on the oral testimony and supporting documentary evidence, the parties represent themselves socially in such a way as to indicate a genuine married relationship at the time of application.
10. The Tribunal has had regard to 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.
11. The Tribunal notes the relationship was one of longstanding and that the parties had made considerable efforts to maintain the relationship over a number of years despite complications concerning the sponsor's previous relationship. The Tribunal notes the sponsor continued to support the applicant through to review.
12. The Tribunal finds that, based on the evidence on file, the parties were in a genuine spousal relationship for some years prior to the application being made and several years prior to sponsor's death. While the parties had an unorthodox living arrangement whilst the sponsor was living in the United States, evidence before the Tribunal supports the account provided by the applicant that the parties have been in a genuine spousal relationship since before the time of application. The Tribunal found the applicant's account of the circumstances of the relationship and the living arrangements to be credible.
13. While the evidence regarding the nature of the relationship is complicated by the allegations from Ms Rahman and the limited evidence that was before the Department and AAT, the Tribunal formed the view on the evidence that the parties provided companionship and emotional support to one another during the relationship and viewed it as long-term. The Tribunal finds that the nature of the parties' commitment to each other was such as would suggest a genuine married relationship at the time of application.

1. The Tribunal considered the evidence in relation to the financial aspects including joint ownership of assets, joint liabilities, any legal obligations owed to the other party, the extent of pooling of financial resources and any sharing of day-to-day household expenses.
2. The applicant provided financial information which reflects the financial circumstances of the relationship.
3. The applicant provided the Department with evidence of financial arrangements including:
   • money transfers sent by the sponsor to the applicant from July to October 2016;
   • a Bendigo Bank joint account as of 2 September 2015 with bank statements for the period 2 September 2015 - 1 December 2015, and another from 2 December 2015 - 1 March 2016;
   • letters from Bendigo Bank addressed to both the applicant and sponsor relating to their joint account, dated 8 October 2015 and 8 March 2016;
   • a Westpac bank statement covering the period 2 November 2015 to 2 February 2016 was provided, however the first 4 pages of the statement were missing and it is unclear to whom this statement belongs;
   • a number of letters from Westpac and Bendigo Bank regarding the sponsor's individual bank accounts;
   • the applicant's Commonwealth bank statements from July 2017 to June 2018, and the sponsor's Commonwealth bank statements from October 2017 - June 2018; and
   • the sponsor's US bank statements with Bank of America dated July to October 2018.
4. In addition, the applicant provided joint bank account statements dating from 5 January 2017 to 22 September 2018 to the AAT. The account appeared to be frequently used. The applicant provided copies of her bank account statements dating July to December 2017 and January to June 2018. The applicant also provided the sponsor's Notice of Assessment dated 8 November 2017.
5. The applicant also provided an evidence of the sponsor's car registration details certificate, with an expiry date of 26 April 2018, which listed the applicant as a joint owner. I accept that this demonstrates the joint ownership of a major asset, being the couple's car.
6. The applicant provided the Tribunal with the copy of the sponsor's last will and testament held in the Office of the Public Trustee, dated 2 August 2023. The will appoints the Public Trustee of Adelaide to be sole executor and trustee of his will. The will bequeaths the whole of the sponsor's real and personal estate to the applicant in the event she survives him by 28 days, and if not it is bequeathed to the Trustee to pay out his funeral, testamentary expenses, debts and the remainder paid to Master O, or Fardin if Master O does not survive the sponsor. The will appoints the applicant's mother, Ms Do, to be Master O's guardian if both the applicant and sponsor pass. I accept that the sponsor's will demonstrates pooling of financial resources.
7. To the Tribunal the applicant provided joint bank account statements that had been issued since the AAT decision, until 30 June 2024. The bank account statements show regular transactions for various expenses such as groceries, home goods, and rent, and I accept that this demonstrates pooling of resources and day to day sharing of household expenses. The applicant also provided a copy of her personal bank statements from February 2023 to April 2024, and the sponsor's personal bank statements from January 2023 to June 2024.
8. The Tribunal was given the sponsor's 2022 tax return documents and 2018-2019 tax return summary, which both listed the applicant as the sponsor's spouse.
9. Based on the evidence the Tribunal finds at the time of application, the applicant and the sponsor did not jointly own any real estate or other major assets and did not have any joint liabilities. At that time, they were living in a home owned by the sponsor.
10. Based on the evidence the Tribunal finds that the sponsor financially supported the applicant during their relationship and up until his death and this is an indicator of a spousal relationship. The applicant supported the sponsor with the Adelaide restaurant and worked on a part time basis where her primary carer responsibilities with respect to Master O allowed.
11. Prior to the sponsor's death, the applicant and sponsor were pooling financial resources. While the restaurant was in the sponsor's name, I accept the applicant was assisting with and supporting the restaurant, reflected in her becoming responsible for managing the restaurant following his death. She also had primary responsibility for managing Master O's needs during the marriage, limiting her own capacity to work noting Master O's high needs relative to other children his age.
12. There was also some evidence in the text message exchanges with the applicant's mother that the sponsor had provided some financial support to family in Vietnam, including for accommodation.
13. Prior to his death, the sponsor created his will in which the applicant was named the primary beneficiary. While that will is being contested by Fardin and Ms Rahman, I consider the existence of the will reflects shared financial arrangements existing while Mr Hassan was alive and his desire to continue to support Ms Doan and Master O financially after his death. Photos sent in 2020 include photos of their restaurant and exchanges in 2021 in regarding tasks for the applicant shopping for the restaurant and preparing food.
14. Overall, the Tribunal considers that the financial arrangements between the parties are indicative of a spousal relationship between the applicant and the sponsor. In particular it is clear that the sponsor wished to continue to provide for Ms Doan and Master O financially after he died. He took legal steps to affect that intention by updating his will. While there are complications with this process, the nature of which is not clear, I consider that demonstrated intentions consistent with the applicant's account of their mutual financial commitment.

1. The Tribunal also had regard to as to the nature of the household including the parties' living arrangements, any joint responsibility for the care and support of children; and any sharing of housework.
2. While allegations on the file suggested that the applicant did not live with the sponsor after their marriage, this is contradicted by other evidence before the Tribunal.

The applicant provided the Department with evidence including bank statement and electricity bills confirming the applicant and sponsor were recorded as residing in Labrador, Queensland together in 2015 and 2016. The applicant's mother, Ms Do, provided evidence corroborating that the applicant and sponsor moved in together in 2014 and that they were living together at the Labrador address when she visited in 2016. The applicant provided electricity bills in her name for the Labrador address dated 15 June, 14 and 17 September and 2 October 2014 and 9 February 2016.

1. In May 2017 the family moved to South Australia, to an address in North Adelaide. The applicant provided the AAT with the tenancy agreement for the North Adelaide address, dated 21 April 2017 and recording both the applicant and sponsor's names. The applicant provided the Tribunal with a copy of lease extensions from 26 March 2018 to 17 April 2019, 17 April 2019 to 15 April 2020, and 15 April 2020 to 14 April 2021. The applicant provided the Tribunal with a rental ledger for the North Adelaide address from 2017 to 2021 which listed both the applicant and sponsor's names.
2. The applicant provided water bills from August 2019 to March 2021 listing both the applicant and sponsor's names and recording them as living at the North Adelaide address. The applicant also provided the Tribunal with various household bills which the couple had emailed to each other when they were issued.
3. The applicant provided the Tribunal with the sponsor's car registration certificate, listing an expiry date of 26 April 2018, recording the sponsor's address as the North Adelaide address. The joint bank account statements from 2018 to 2020 listed the sponsor and applicant's address as the North Adelaide address.
4. The applicant also provided a copy of the sponsor's notice of assessment for the year ended 30 June 2017, issued 8 November 2017, though this noted the sponsor's address was in Southport, Queensland. The Tribunal notes that it appears from evidence with respect to the will that the sponsor maintained ownership of a number of properties and businesses in Queensland some of which the applicant said had been 'given' to Ms Rahman and Fardin in the 2017 settlement.
5. In Mr Hassan's statutory declaration dated 25 August 2023 he claimed that his psoriasis was at its worst during 2014 to 2016 and as a result of this he confused people's names and dates, and his memory was poor during this period. He said that due to his condition he was not able to change his address for a lot of his mail, which was still sent to his old address in the Gold Coast. During that time he sometimes went to his old house in the Gold Coast to see his son and deal with paperwork when needed. The applicant provided the Tribunal with a medical certificate from the sponsor's doctor in Queensland who treated him from 2012 to 2019, who notes that during this time period the sponsor was anxious and depressed and reported that he suffered from confusion and memory loss. While the medical report regarding confusion and memory loss seems to be based on a self-report of symptoms, the medical evidence raises no issues regarding the credibility of that claim and I accept the sponsor may have been suffering such symptoms as a result of his condition at that time.
6. As noted earlier, I also consider that it is possible that the sponsor was maintaining a relationship with Ms Rahman to manage the breakup of that relationship and the impact on Fardin. I do not consider this is necessarily inconsistent with a commitment to Ms Doan and I consider the long spousal relationship which followed supports the genuineness of his commitment at that time, notwithstanding ongoing arrangements including shared business interests and properties with Ms Rahman.
7. The applicant provided the Department with a copy of the sponsor's car registration details listing a commencement date of 2 November 2017. The sponsor's address was listed as the North Adelaide address. The applicant provided the Tribunal with a letter from Medicare regarding child dental benefits for Master O, dated 1 February 2021 and sent to the North Adelaide address. I accept that these letters and the other documents addressed to their residence in North Adelaide support the contention they lived together at that address during the claimed time period.
8. The applicant also provided the Tribunal with a letter from Centrelink regarding the Child Care Subsidy for Master O dated 11 June 2020. The letter is addressed to the applicant and notes it is a copy of the letter sent to the sponsor, for whom she is listed as the nominee. I accept that this demonstrates some joint responsibility for childcare. The applicant also provided other letters from Centrelink, one dated 24 April 2020, regarding the sponsor's mutual obligations exemption, and one dated 1 April 2020 referring to the sponsor's one-off economic support payment, both noting they are copies of the letter sent to the sponsor and that she is his nominee. All letters are addressed to their address in North Adelaide.
9. In April 2021 the family moved to a home in Prospect, South Australia. The applicant provided the Tribunal with copies of lease extensions from 21 March 2022 and the latest until 9 April 2026. The latest acceptance of lease extension, dated 30 December 2024, lists both the applicant and sponsor's names, though I note the sponsor died in May 2024, indicating his name has remained on the lease after his death.
10. The joint bank statements dated 2021 to 2024 listed the couple's address as the Prospect address.
11. On 8 December 2025 the applicant gave the Tribunal an extract of correspondence between the applicant and the sponsor from 4 August 2019 to 11 May 2024. The correspondence discussed work, requests for groceries, and arrangements for their son. I accept the messages demonstrate how the couple managed joint responsibility for the care and support of Master O, their living arrangements, and the sharing of the responsibility for housework noting Ms Doan gave evidence that she had primary responsibility for managing Master O's care while the sponsor was managing the business.
12. The AAT's reasons for decision also refers to evidence from Master O's school that the sponsor often collected Master O from school.
13. The applicant provided evidence of messages between the applicant and sponsor, with some messages dating back to 2016. The messages discuss contacts for a handyman, rent, childcare arrangements, food the couple cook each other, grocery requests, and photos of the couple and their child. The messages between the applicant and sponsor appear to be messages expected of a genuine couple who share a household and child.
14. The applicant's mother provided a statement noting she had shared a house with the couple for several months following Master O's birth. She notes they helped each other with household chores and that as her daughter was still recovering from the birth Ms Hassan supported her with cooking, cleaning and changing and bathing Master O. She states a belief that they were living in a genuine relationship in their home and sharing household responsibilities.
15. Having considered the evidence I find that the sponsor and the applicant lived together from 2014 until the sponsor's death in September 2023 and that the evidence of the nature of the household is indicative of a genuine spousal relationship.

1. The Tribunal has had regard to the evidence provided as to whether the parties represent themselves to others as being married to each other, the opinion of their friends and acquaintances about the nature of the relationship and any basis on which the parties plan to undertake joint social activities.
2. The applicant provided photos and a copy of her phone log covering the period from 2018 - 2024. The photos depicted the applicant and sponsor, sometimes with their son and sometimes with others. The call log showed regular calls to and from the sponsor. Further photos and posts refer to arrangements for their restaurant, arrangements for their son.
3. The applicant provided evidence that the couple presented themselves as married to government authorities including the Tax Department, Centrelink and real estate agents over a number of years.
4. On 5 November 201 the applicant provided the AAT with an undated statement from the applicant's sister, Do Diem Quynh Doan. Her sister stated that she believed their relationship to be 'absolutely genuine and continuing' and that the applicant first told her about the sponsor in 2013. In her statement Ms Doan said that the couple had visited the family in Vietnam the previous year and that the sponsor still spoke to Ms Doan and their mother sometimes to ask how they are, indicating 'he really respects and cares for [their] family'.
5. The applicant also provided an undated statement from Chi Thanh Tran, the owner of the Lucky Asian Grocery Store who claimed the applicant and sponsor were regular customers since May 2017. Ms Tran said the couple usually came to the store 2-3 times per week, often with Master O.
6. The applicant provided a letter from Jasim Howlader who had known the sponsor from 2008 and the applicant since 2015. He described the couple as happily married and stated he had visited the couple at their home in Labrador, Queensland. Mr Howlader said he believed the relationship to be genuine and continuing, and that the sponsor often spoke about the applicant and Master O a lot. Of the sponsor, Mr Howlader said 'he loves them so much and all he does is for his family's great future'.
7. The applicant provided the Tribunal with a statement from the applicant's mother, Ms Do dated 17 November 2025 and 20 pages of correspondence between the sponsor and the applicant's mother, Ms Do. One undated message from Ms Do to the sponsor said that she and her daughters were happy and she thought the sponsor was happy too because they are a family. The sponsor replied to say that he is so happy. Another message implied that the sponsor and applicant had sent Ms Do money for accommodation.
8. The applicant provided the Tribunal with documents that she had not provided to the AAT but provided as part of the Court review. I note most of this material was not admissible in that process but I have had regard to it in the application for review.
9. One document was a letter of support from Md Emran Haidar dated 6 August 2023. Mr Haidar said that his family and the applicant's became very close, and the families had been to each other's houses and shared meals, and that as their sons are similar ages they get along well. Mr Haidar describes the applicant and sponsor as a happy family who treat each other with respect and love, and describes their relationship as genuine.
10. The Tribunal also received a letter dated 16 August 2023 from Mahbub Siraz, the former chairperson and current advisor of the South Australian Bangladeshi Community Association SABCA). His letter stated that he met the applicant and sponsor when they attended SABCA events and other social gatherings together, and that they appear to look after each other's wellbeing and share their feelings. He also stated that he believed the couple to be in a genuine relationship. The applicant provided a letter from the SABCA's chairperson Mohammad Tarik, who stated that to his knowledge the applicant and sponsor had lived together since 2017 and were the proud parents of Master O. He said that both were active members of the SABCA community. The applicant provided a letter from a person named Goldy who lived with the couple from July 2019 to February 2022 at their North Adelaide address and then their Prospect address. She said that the applicant and sponsor lived together as husband and wife, and shared responsibilities between work and family matters. Finally, the applicant provided a letter from Samadhi Dias who lived with the applicant and sponsor at their Prospect address since February 2022. The letter said that when the sponsor goes to work the applicant looks after the house and takes care of Master O, and said they have no doubt that their relationship is truthful and genuine.
11. I accept that these statements demonstrate that the applicant and sponsor represented themselves as a married couple to others, and that their friend's opinions were that they were a genuine couple.
12. The Tribunal considers that the applicant and sponsor were known friends as spouses and that they socialised with members of the Bangladeshi community in Adelaide. The sponsor was known to and in contact with the applicant's family in Vietnam and supported them financially. The applicant said she had met Mr Hassan's sister and was in occasional contact with her but not often and only when Mr Hassan was speaking with her. While there was limited information of contact with the sponsor's family, this of itself does not establish the relationship was not known or genuine.
13. The evidence portrays a couple who were committed to each other at the time of application and recognised as being in a genuine and committed relationship by their friends, family and acquaintances. The Tribunal finds, based on the evidence, that the parties represented themselves socially in such a way as to indicate a genuine spousal relationship at time the application was made.

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 applicant and sponsor were married on 15 July 2015 and their son was born in January 2016. At the time of the sponsor's death the parties had been married for 9 years. I accept that the parties drew emotional support from each other, noting the support the applicant provided the sponsor for his psoriasis and their ongoing shared care for their son who has a significant developmental disorder.
3. In remitting the matter for jurisdictional error, the Court noted the fact that Ms Doan was pregnant at the time of the Partner Visa Application was a matter relevant to the nature of the commitment that Ms Doan and Mr Hassan had to each other, and as to whether they saw that commitment as being a long term one. The court noted:[3]

Indeed, it might be observed that the existence of an unborn child is a matter which might more naturally be considered as part of the nature of each persons' commitment to the other than as to the nature of the household into which the child has not yet been born.

4. The Tribunal respectfully agrees. Notwithstanding adverse information regarding the nature of Mr Hassan's relationship with his former partner and their son in the initial years of the relationship with Ms Doan, in the Tribunal's view the decision to marry before Master O was born and the subsequent commitment to a shared life caring for and raising him is strong evidence of a commitment of the kind required by the Regulations to demonstrate a genuine spousal relationship.
5. Ms Doan testified that she and Mr Hassan did not have an engagement as such before marrying. The implication was that the pregnancy was part of their commitment to be married and that marrying before the baby's arrival was important to starting their family life as a married couple. I consider the ongoing evidence that they lived as a family after Master O's birth demonstrated the decision to have a child was a reflection of a long-term commitment. This is the case notwithstanding Mr Hassan spent period after this living and working in the US. I accept the explanation that this was to facilitate his treatment and that once his psoriasis was well managed the evidence demonstrates he built a business in Adelaide to provide for his family there.
6. The applicant provided evidence relating to Master O, including copies of claims for childcare benefits, his birth certificate, and various photos of the couple together, with their son, and with friends and family. She also provided details of his Autism diagnosis and treatment plans which indicate he had relatively high needs which both Ms Doan and Mr Hassan were working together to meet. The applicant provided the Tribunal with a number of documents related to Master O's care, including speech pathology reports, OT assessment reports, an educational psychology report, and various NDIS plans. The speech pathology report dated 30 July 2019 notes that Master O lives with the applicant and sponsor and that Vietnamese and Bengali were spoken at home. The OT assessment report dated 30 September 2019 includes feedback from both the applicant and sponsor, and indicates that both were involved in Master O's care.
7. There was other evidence to support the nature of the applicant and sponsor's commitment to one another.
8. As noted above, the applicant provided records of calls and between her and the sponsor between over the period from 2018-2024.

1. The sponsor provided several statements including one dated 9 November 2018. In his statement, he described how the applicant cared for him when he was first diagnosed with psoriasis, massaging him every night and wrapping his body in clingwrap. He said she researched the disease and gave him advice about what he should and should not eat, encouraging him to do exercise and asking him to stop drinking and smoking. Mr Hassan stated that the applicant would go for a run together 2-3 times per week and 'because of her, [his] lifestyle completely changed but in a better and more positive way'. The sponsor also said that the applicant encouraged him to see his child he shared with Dolly, Fardin, and said he is 'very thankful to have [the applicant] in [his] life'.
2. The sponsor said that his relationship with the applicant is based on love and trust and he works hard to build their future together.
3. The sponsor provided another statement, undated but received by the AAT on 7 January 2019. In this he states that he is no longer with Dolly and asks the Tribunal not to listen to Dolly's claims, stating that when he was sick Dolly never looked after him. He attached a photo of him, the applicant, and Master O to demonstrate how happy he was with the applicant.
4. As noted above, the applicant provided the Tribunal with statements dated 17 November 2025. The applicant's letter describes how the couple drew support from each other, particularly in relation to the sponsor's skin condition and Master O's care, and that they saw their relationship as long term. She provided communication records across a number of years indicating the couple planned and operated their restaurant together, shared household taks and planned for Master O's care.
5. The Tribunal formed the view that at the time the parties married and at the time of the application, the parties viewed the relationship as long-term.
6. The Tribunal is satisfied on the evidence that the nature of the parties' commitment to each other demonstrates a genuine spousal relationship at the time the application was made.

1. As noted above, the parties married on 15 July 2015. On the evidence, 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).
2. The Tribunal acknowledges the concerns of the delegate and the AAT regarding the genuineness of the relationship and the matters raised in allegations which I accept were from Ms Rahman. Those were later retracted by Ms Rahman who provided a statutory declaration to the effect she made claims which were untrue to hurt the applicant and sponsor in the circumstances of the breakdown of her relationship with Mr Hassan.
3. The test is whether it can be said that the parties have a mutual commitment to a shared life as husband and wife to the exclusion of all others.[4] The delegate and the AAT were not satisfied that there was a mutual commitment, particularly on the part of Mr Hassan who had ongoing involvement with Ms Rahman and their son and who had provided inconsistent evidence regarding the end to that relationship.
4. The Tribunal was unable to test those matters with Mr Hassan. However, I consider that the account of the relationship Ms Doan offered was borne out by the evidence before me, including the evidence of ongoing cohabitation and parenting of Master O over the 9-year period since they married and prior to Mr Hassan's death.
5. of the level of mutual commitment in spousal relationships may differ 'ranging from barely sufficient to enable a marriage to subsist to levels of commitment akin to devotion'.[5] The Federal Court has acknowledged that there may be marriages in which the parties have differing levels or degrees of commitment, or in which the commitment of the parties to each other is of a different quality holding that such differences do not matter in the application of the test set out in reg 1.15A. The marriage will be genuine so long as each party has a commitment of the kind described in the test [6].
6. Indeed, previous concurrent relationships do not necessarily mean a lack of genuine partner relationship. However, such concurrent relationships must have ended for there to be a genuine partner relationship at the relevant time. Relationships with others, including sexual infidelity of the parties to the relationship does not necessarily take the relationship outside the definition of spouse. It will be a matter of fact and degree in the circumstances of the case, to be considered, along with all the other circumstances of the relationship, in determining whether the parties have or had the requisite commitment to a shared life to the exclusion of all others at the relevant time.[7]
7. In this case the Tribunal is satisfied that while there may have been a period of 'concurrence' in the relationship between Mr Hassan and the applicant and Mr Hassan and Ms Rahman, at the time they married, and the application was made they had a mutual commitment to a shared life to the exclusion of all others. That was in part evidenced by their decision to have a child together and subsequently to raise that child together.
8. It was clear that Mr Hassan chose to make a life with Ms Doan despite the fact that the process of separating from Ms Rahman was no doubt complicated, as ongoing issues between the couple and Ms Rahman and the dispute over the will demonstrate. However, I am satisfied that there was a mutual commitment to a shared life to the exclusion of all others at the time of application and that this commitment has been demonstrated the intervening period.
9. As the Court noted in remitting this matter to the Tribunal for reconsideration, when determining whether two persons have a mutual commitment to a shared life as a married couple to the exclusion of all others and whether the relationship is genuine and continuing, a decision maker must have regard to all of the circumstances of the relationship. In the applicant's case this included the decision by her and the sponsor to marry and have a child they were raising together before the sponsor's sudden death.
10. Having considered all of the circumstances of the relationship including the evidence relating to 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), the Tribunal is satisfied that the requirements of s.5F are met at the time the application was made.
11. Based on the evidence before it the Tribunal is satisfied that at the time the application was made, the applicant and her sponsor had a mutual commitment to a shared life as a husband and wife to the exclusion of all others as required by s 5F(2)(b) of the Act. The Tribunal is satisfied that that at the time the application was made the visa applicant, and her sponsor were in a genuine and continuing relationship as required by s 5F(2)(c) of the Act. I am also satisfied that at the time the application was made they lived together or not separately and apart on a permanent basis as required by s 5F(2)(d)(ii) of the Act.
12. On the basis of the above the Tribunal is satisfied that the requirements of s 5F(2) were met at the time the visa application was made. Therefore the applicant meets cl 820.211(2)(a).
13. The Tribunal is further satisfied that the applicant would continue to meet the requirements of cl 820.211(2)(a) at the time of the Tribunal's decision, except that the sponsoring partner has died. Therefore, she meets the requirements set out in cl 820.821(2)(b).
14. On the basis of the above the Tribunal is satisfied that the requirements of s 5F(2) are met at the time the visa application was made and the time of this decision.
15. 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 820 visa.

1. The Tribunal sets aside the decision under review and remits the application for a Partner (Temporary) (Class UK) visa for reconsideration in accordance with the order that the applicant meets the following criteria for a Subclass 820 (Partner) visa:
   • cl 820.211(2)(a) of Schedule 2 to the Regulations
   • cl 820.221(2) of Schedule 2 to the Regulations

**ATTACHMENT - Extract from Migration Regulations 1994

(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).

(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).

[1] At the time of the delegate's decision, cl 820.821(2)(c) required that an applicant had also developed close business, cultural or personal ties in Australia. However, cl 820.821(2)(c) was repealed with effect from 1 July 2024, and it does not continue to be a requirement at the time of the Tribunal's decision.

[2] Doan v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs [2024] FedCFamC2G 1119.

[3] Doan v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs [2024] FedCFamC2G 119 at [30].

[4] Minister of State for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs v Dhillon [1990] FCA 200.

[5] You v Minister for Immigration [2007] FMCA 1064.

[6] Sevim v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2001] FCA 1597.

[7] Cao v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2007] FMCA 225, at [36] and [42].