Lal v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2025] FedCFamC2G 2002

1. By an application filed in this Court on 30 September 2020 (Application), the Applicant seeks judicial review of the decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, pursuant to section 476 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (Act).
2. On the 28 August 2020, the Tribunal affirmed the decision of a delegate (Delegate) of the First Respondent (Minister) not to grant the Applicant a Partner (Temporary) (Class UK) (Subclass 820) visa and Partner (Residence) Class (BS) (subclass 801) (the Visa).

1. The Applicant is a citizen of India.
2. The Applicant has an extensive visa history. He arrived in Australia on 20 April 2010 as a secondary applicant on his then wife's student visa which expired on 25 September 2012. On 28 June 2012, the Applicant was included as a secondary applicant in his then wife's application for a Regional Sponsored (Subclass 875) visa. This application was withdrawn on 28 March 2013 after the sponsor nomination was refused.
3. The Applicant was an unlawful non-citizen from 25 April 2013 to 16 May 2013.
4. On 23 May 2013, the Applicant lodged an application for a Temporary Skilled (subclass 457) visa. This visa application was also rejected. The Applicant sought review of the decision before the Migration Review Tribunal on 12 December 2013 and withdrew his application on 11 April 2014.
5. The Applicant applied for the Visa on 9 April 2014. The visa application was based on the Applicant's relationship, with Ms Ash (Sponsor). The Sponsor is an Australian citizen. The Applicant deposed to the fact that he commenced a committed relationship with the Sponsor on 27 February 2014 and married the Sponsor on 7 March 2014.
6. A delegate of the Minister refused to grant the Visa on 25 September 2014 because the Applicant did not satisfy condition 3001 of Schedule 3 of the Regulations, as he did not satisfy clause 820.211(2)(d)(ii) of Schedule 2 of the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth) (Regulations). The Applicant sought review of the decision before the Tribunal on 10 October 2014. On 2 June 2015 the Tribunal affirmed the decision of the delegate. The Applicant sought judicial review of the decision of the Tribunal in the Federal Circuit Court. The matter was remitted by consent to the Tribunal on 1 April 2016. On 20 September 2016, the Tribunal remitted the matter to the delegate with a direction that the Applicant met Schedule 3 criteria as required by clause 820.211(2)(d)(ii) of Schedule 2 of the Regulations.
7. On 27 January 2017, the delegate requested further information from the Applicant, including a marriage certificate and any further evidence of relationship with the Sponsor. The Applicant submitted a marriage certificated dated 12 March 2017, photos, and statutory declarations.
8. On 18 April 2017, the Delegate refused to grant the Applicant the visa on the basis that clause 820.211(2)(a) of Schedule 2 of the Regulations was not met, namely that the Applicant was not the spouse of the Sponsor at the time of the application. The Delegate was not satisfied that the Applicant met the definition of spouse as provided in section 5F of the Act and r 1.15A of the Regulations.
9. Section 5F(2)(a) of the Act provides that a "visa applicant and sponsor must have a mutual commitment to a shared life, a genuine and continuing relationship, and live together or not live separately and apart on a permanent basis".
10. The Applicant lodged an application for review with the Tribunal on 27 April 2017. The Tribunal affirmed the Delegate's Decision on 29 October 2018, having not been satisfied the parties had a mutual commitment to shared life, a genuine and continuing relationship and live together or not separately on a permanent basis as required by section 5F of the Act.
11. The Applicant sought judicial review of the 2018 Tribunal's Decision in the Federal Circuit Court. On 29 September 2019 the matter was remitted to the Tribunal by a Judge of the Court.
12. On 20 July 2020 the Tribunal sent a hearing invitation to the Applicant's representative. On 29 July 2020 and 3 August 2020, the Applicant's representative requested that the hearing be postponed because of the COVID-19 border closures and the Sponsor's parents being away. The Applicant's representative provided a completed response to hearing invitation form on 4 August 2020.
13. The Tribunal hearing was relisted and took place 13 August 2020 by videoconference. The Applicant was assisted by a Punjabi interpreter. The Applicant appeared at the Tribunal hearing from the Sponsor's parents' house in Grafton. The Applicant, the Sponsor, and the Sponsor's parents gave evidence at the Tribunal Hearing. After the hearing, written submissions were provided by the Applicant's representative on 20 August 2020.

THE TRIBUNAL'S DECISION - SUBJECT TO THIS JUDICIAL REVIEW APPLICATION

1. On 28 August 2020 the Tribunal affirmed the Delegate's Decision (Tribunal Decision). The Applicant was notified of the Tribunal's Decision on 31 August 2020.
2. The Tribunal identified the issue before it as being whether the Applicant was in a genuine relationship with the Sponsor at the time of making the Application and continued to be so at the time of the Tribunal's decision.
3. The Tribunal summarised the applicable law, identifying section 5F(2) of the Act, Schedule 2 clauses 820.211 and 820.221 and r 1.15A(3) of the Regulations. The Tribunal annexed copies of said law to its decision.
4. The Tribunal accepted that the Applicant and Sponsor were married in Grafton New South Wales on 21 March 2014, that the marriage was registered on 22 March 2017, and that the Applicant and the sponsor were married to each other for the purposes of section 5F(2)(a) of the Act.
5. The Tribunal considered the development of the relationship based on the evidence before it. The Tribunal advised the Applicant that the spousal relationship had to be genuine at the time of the visa application, at the time of the Tribunal's decision and that the Tribunal had concerns about the development of the relationship.
6. The Tribunal found that the Applicant and the Sponsor were not reliable witnesses. The Tribunal found that the Applicant was seeking a way to stay in Australia and as a result cultivated a relationship with the Sponsor.
7. When determining whether the Applicant was the spouse of the Sponsor for the purposes of section 5F(2), the Tribunal took into account the mandatory considerations in r 1.15A(3) of the Regulations.
8. First with respect to the financial aspects of the relationship: the Tribunal found that the Applicant and the Sponsor had no joint assets or liabilities; and gave significant weight to the fact that the Applicant had not pooled his financial resources with those of the Sponsor.
9. Second with respect to the nature of the household: the Tribunal found that the parties have separate living arrangements and primarily live apart for most of the week with the Applicant having stopovers in Grafton primarily on the weekends. It was not accepted that there was any shared responsibility for the Sponsor's child. The Tribunal considered no joint household to have been established commensurate with a spousal relationship.
10. Third with respect to the social aspects of the relationship: the Tribunal noted the Sponsor had never met the Applicant's family. Little weight was given to letter of support from the principal of the Sponsor's child's school because it lacked detail and the writer appeared to be unaware that the Applicant did not reside in Grafton. Little weight was also attributed to the letter of support purported to be from the Sponsors cousin as it appeared to be fabricated. It was noted that there was no evidence that the Sponsor had travelled to Melbourne and met the Applicants friends and that the Applicant's Facebook profile in 2016 appears to present himself as not being married. The Tribunal found that the Applicant and the Sponsor do not appear to have functioned socially or be recognised as a married couple outside of Grafton. The evidence that the Applicant and Sponsor participated in social activities and were recognised as a couple in Grafton was outweighed by the fact that the relationship was not socially expressed more widely.
11. Fourth with respect to the nature of persons' commitment to each other, the Tribunal found the length of the relationship, at the time some six and a half years, was undermined by the fact that the Applicant and the Sponsor were primarily only living together on weekends. The Applicant and Sponsor communicated daily, but the Tribunal found that it was contrived. The Tribunal determined that there was a part time relationship of convenience for the Applicant's migration outcome.
12. The Tribunal was not satisfied that section 5F(2) was satisfied at the time of the visa application or decision and therefore clause 820.211(2)(a) was not met.

1. The Application was filed in this Court on 30 September 2020, within 35 days of the date of the Tribunal's Decision as prescribed by section 477 of the Migration Act.
2. On 5 May 2021 and 5 July 2021 Orders were made for filing of the material. The Applicant has not filed material in accordance with these Orders. On 24 June 2025, a Notice of Withdrawal of Lawyer was filed for the Applicant. On 3 July 2025, the Applicant filed a Notice of Address for Service. On 7 July 2025 outside the time prescribed by the Orders and after the Minister filed submissions, the Applicant filed a lengthy submission including attachments. This submission raised additional grounds of review that had not been previously raised in the Application.
3. This matter came before me on 17 July 2025. The Applicant appeared in person with the assistance of a Punjabi interpreter and a solicitor for the Minister appeared. The Minister sought an adjournment of the Hearing. I granted the adjournment and made orders for the filing of further material given the late filing and content of the Applicant's submissions filed on 7 July 2025.
4. The matter was further adjourned following a request by the Applicant on 3 September 2025. I informed both parties that no further adjournments would be granted.
5. The matter was heard on 1 October 2025 and proceeded in person (Hearing). The Applicant appeared in person with the assistance of a Punjabi interpreter and a solicitor for the Minister appeared.
6. The Applicant relied upon the following documents:

(a) The Application filed on 30 September 2020;

(b) An Affidavit of Maria Psihogios filed on 30 September 2020, annexing the Tribunal's Decision; and

(c) An Outline of Submissions filed on 7 July 2025.

(a) The Response filed on 6 October 2020.

(b) An Outline of Submissions filed on 3 July 2025; and

(c) Supplementary Outline of Submissions filed on 22 August 2025.

1. The Minister filed a Court Book on 30 July 2021.
2. At the Hearing I confirmed that the Applicant and the Interpreter understood each other and that the Applicant was willing to proceed with the hearing with the nominated interpreter. The Applicant confirmed that he did not require the whole proceedings to be interpreted and that he only required the interpreter when he did not understand something. I explained the nature of the proceedings and confirmed that the Applicant had all the material upon which the parties relied. I advised the Applicant that I would not accept the attachments to his submission as they were not before the Tribunal as they post-dated the Tribunal Hearing.
3. I asked the Applicant to address the grounds of review in his application and in his submissions. I asked him whether he was able to address me using grouping of the grounds used by the Minister in the Supplementary Outline of Submissions or whether he wished to address me on the grounds of review in a global manner. The Applicant elected to proceed by making a global oral address and primarily sought to rely upon his written submission.
4. The Application contained the following grounds of review (Grounds of Review):

1. The Tribunal took into account irrelevant considerations

2. The Tribunal failed to take into account relevant considerations

3. The Tribunal misconstrued regulation 1.15(A)(3) of the Regulations

1. The Applicant in his written submissions identified the following grounds of review:

(a) The Tribunal did not properly consider the full circumstance of case, including genuine and continuing relationship with wife, and the impact that the strict application of Schedule 3 would have in a unique situation (paragraphs 5 -12)

(b) The Tribunal took into account irrelevant considerations (paragraph 21)

(c) The Tribunal failed to consider relevant considerations (paragraph 22)

(d) The Tribunal misconstrued regulation 1.15A (paragraph 22)

(e) Failure to consider relevant evidence (paragraph 23)

(f) Incorrect application of legal criteria (paragraph 24)

(g) Lack of procedural fairness (paragraph 25)

(h) Inadequate reasons and illogical reasoning (paragraph 26)

(i) My compelling and special circumstance for compassionate grounds (paragraph 32)

(j) Family Violence Provisions under Migration Act and Migration Regulations - Div 1. 5 Special provisions relating to family violence (paragraph 47)

(k) My contribution to the Australian Community (paragraph 52 - 57)

(l) The legal process failed me completely (paragraph 58 - 61)

(m) Impact of judicial error on my life (paragraph 62 - 63)

(n) Law-Abiding and Responsible Resident (paragraph 64 - 67)

1. For convenience in my consideration of the grounds of review I have grouped the grounds of review in the same manner as the Minister in the Supplementary Submission filed on 22 August 2025.

Not considering the full circumstance of the case - at paragraph [5] - [12] of the Applicant's written submission

1. The Applicant submitted that the Tribunal repeated the previously identified legal error by misapplying clause 820.211(2)(d)(ii) of Schedule 2 of the Regulations by failing to consider whether the applicant satisfied Schedule 3 of the Regulations. The Applicant asserts that on 18 August 2016 the Tribunal remitted the Visa application back to the department because that clause of the Regulations had been met. For clarification, the Tribunal in fact remitted the matter to the Department on 20 September 2016.
2. The Minister submits that this submission is misguided as the Tribunal did not find that the Applicant did not meet the Schedule 3 criteria, but rather that the applicant did not meet clauses 820.211(2)(a) or 820.221, and for those reasons affirmed the Delegate's Decision.
3. I agree with the submission of the Minister. At paragraph [73] and [74] of the Tribunal's Decision the Tribunal found, after considering mandatory considerations in r 1.15A(3) of the Regulations, that the Applicant had not satisfied section 5F(2) of the Act at the time the decision was made and consequently did not meet clauses 820.211(2)(a) or 820.221 of the Regulations. There was no finding that the Applicant failed to meet the Schedule 3 criteria.
4. It cannot be accepted that there was a disregard of an earlier lawful determination when the Tribunal made its determination on different grounds. The Applicant is unable to make out its submission that the decision was infected by illogicality and unreasonableness and consequently has been unable to establish a jurisdictional error.

Ground 1 and paragraph [21] of the Applicant's written submissions - irrelevant considerations

1. The Applicant contended that the Tribunal wrongly took into account: that he had notified the Department of Home Affairs that his prior marriage ended; that he had previously applied for other Australian visas; that he entered into the relationship and marriage without holding a permanent visa; minor discrepancies in the Sponsor's and his evidence regarding the development of the relationship from 2012 to the marriage in March 2014; and the content of his Facebook profile. It was submitted that these matters were irrelevant to the Tribunal's consideration of the "core statutory questions under s 5F and regulation 1.15A(3)".
2. The Minister submitted that none of the considerations identified by the Applicant were prohibited from being taken into account. It was submitted that r 1.15A(2) of the Regulations provides that "the Minister must consider all of the circumstances" of the relationship "including the matters set out in sub-regulation (3)."
3. I was directed to PAM3, Division 1.2/Regulation 1.15A - Spouse, sections 3.3-3.4. This policy guideline stipulates in relation to spouse applications that the Tribunal "can consider any additional information that is reasonable and practicable on which a decision can be based."
4. The Minister further submitted that those matters considered by the Tribunal under the heading "Background - development of the relationship" were matters that formed part of a "legitimate relevant line of inquiry to ascertain whether the Applicant and Sponsor were in a genuine spousal relationship" as defined in s 5F of the Migration Act.
5. I agree with the submission of the Minister, there was no prohibition on the Tribunal taking into account those matters referred to by the Applicant, to do so was both reasonable and practical in the circumstances.
6. The Applicant has not made out a jurisdictional error with respect to this ground.

Ground 2 and paragraph [22] of the Applicant's written submissions - failure to take into account relevant considerations

1. The Applicant claims that the Tribunal, in concluding that the Sponsor and the Applicant did not have any joint assets or liabilities, did not consider that: the Sponsor and the Applicant paid rent to the Sponsor's parents; the Sponsor and Applicant were of modest means and pooled their limited income; the Sponsor relied upon Centrelink payments; the Sponsor had an intellectual disability, the Applicant worked interstate truck driver to support the household, the Sponsor's parents were saving rent, monies paid by the Applicant and Sponsor for the purpose of a future deposit for the family home, and that supporting documentary evidence was dismissed without adequate reasons.
2. The Applicant also claimed that the Tribunal wrongly impugned the credibility of the Sponsor and her Father.
3. The Minister submitted that the Tribunal considered:

(a) at paragraphs [30], [43] and [46] of its reasons that the Applicant and the Sponsor were paying rent to the Sponsor's parents and that the rental monies were being saved for a future deposit for the family home;

(b) at paragraphs [41] - [49] of its reasons the Applicant and the Sponsor's joint and individual bank accounts;

(c) at paragraphs [29] and [45] of its reasons the fact that the Applicant worked as an interstate truck driver;

(d) at paragraph [44] and [51] of its reasons respectively that the Sponsor was in receipt of Centrelink payments and the Sponsor cared for her Mother;

(e) at paragraph [28] of its reasons the Sponsor was adopted from a Sri Lankan orphanage, that she suffered from an intellectual disability caused by malnutrition; and

(f) at paragraph [28] of its reasons the Sponsor's Father's evidence.

1. I agree with the submissions of the Minister that the Tribunal was not required to refer to each piece of evidence in its reasons: Applicant WAEE v MIMIA (2003) 236 FCR 593 at [46] per French, Sackville and Hely JJ.
2. It is clear from the Tribunal's reasons that it considered those matters identified by the Applicant as relevant to the Tribunal's decision. This is evidenced in the paragraphs of the reasons referred to by the Minister. Although the Tribunal did not specifically refer to the fact that neither the Applicant nor the Sponsor were wealthy and not highly educated it does not mean that there was a failure to take into account a relevant consideration. I also accept that there was no evidence before the Tribunal that the Sponsor's education and employment prospects were limited.
3. It was also submitted by the Applicant that the Tribunal wrongly impugned the Sponsor's Father's credibility. At paragraph [69] of the Tribunal's Decision the Tribunal noted that the Sponsor's Father had assisted others to obtain visas to remain in Australia. The reference at paragraph [69] of the Tribunal findings regarding the credibility of the Applicant and the Sponsor was a reiteration of the finding at paragraph [38] of the Tribunal's Decision. No finding impugning the Sponsor's Father was made. I agree with the Minister's submissions that findings regarding credit of witnesses are a function of the decisionmaker "par excellence": Re MIMA; Ex parte Durairajasingham [2000] HCA 1 at [67].
4. With respect to the allegation by the Applicant, that the Tribunal dismissed the extensive documentation before it as contrived, the Minister submitted that there was no evidence that would allow an inference that the documents before the Tribunal were not properly considered. The Tribunal at paragraph [18] of its reasons stated that it had all the information from the Department and Tribunal files and would be drawing on it and at paragraph [72] that it had considered all the evidence before it. I agree with the Minister's submission that the Tribunal throughout its reasons refers to various pieces of documentary evidence tendered by the Applicant. I agree with the submission of the Minister that the Tribunal's consideration of the documentary evidence focussed on weighing this evidence against the factors in r 1.15A(3) of the Regulations as against the other evidence, before it was to determine whether the sponsor and the applicant were in a spousal relationship.
5. The Applicant submitted that the Tribunal misconstrued mutual commitment and failed to have proper regard to the Guidelines on Vulnerable Persons when considering whether it was appropriate to obtain evidence from the Sponsor's 10-year-old son. It was submitted that the Tribunal made adverse findings about the relationship between the Applicant and the Sponsor's child because the 10 year old son did not provide evidence.
6. The Minister submitted that the Tribunal did not make any findings because the Sponsor's child did not give evidence. The Applicant did not seek to call the Sponsor's son. I agree with the Minister's submission that this ground is misconceived because the guidelines provide guidance about what should be considered when dealing with vulnerable people and what is not a mandatory consideration: Norbis v Norbis [1986] HCA 17; (1986) 161 CLR 513 at [519-520].
7. Ground 2, its particulars and those matters raised in paragraph 22 of the Applicant's submission must be dismissed, no jurisdictional error has been identified.

Ground 3, Particular (c) of Ground 2 and second paragraph [22] of the Applicant's written submissions

1. It was submitted by the Applicant that the Tribunal misconstrued the concept of "mutual commitment" as requiring "identical or co-extensive commitment in every respect contrary to established authority". The Applicant relied upon Tran v Minister for Immigration, Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2003] FCA 44 (Tran) to support his submission.
2. The Minister rightly asserts in its submission that the phrase "identical or co-extensive commitment in every respect contrary to established authority" is not used by the Tribunal in its reasons. I agree that the phrase is not consistent with the Tribunal's reasoning. I also agree that Tran must be considered contextually namely that the "mutual commitment" need not be coextensive where one party suffers from an illness or disability that may affect that party's ability to conceive of the relationship in the same way as the other party.
3. There is nothing in the Tribunal's reasons, as submitted by the Minister, to suggest that there was a lack of mutual commitment because of an impairment of either the Applicant or the Sponsor. This ground is misconceived and cannot succeed.
4. The Applicant submitted that the Tribunal failed to apply r 1.15A of the Regulations by placing undue emphasis on his migration history and the financial aspects of the relationship, instead of assessing all the circumstances holistically as required. The Applicant said that the factors are not a checklist, and the totality of the evidence must be weighed.
5. The Tribunal's reasons give no indication that the Tribunal treated the making of the decision on a checklist basis. I agree with the submissions of the Minister. The Tribunal considered the factors in r 1.15A(3) of the Regulations and placed varying degrees of weight on those factors as the Tribunal considered appropriate. Further the Tribunal has made express findings regarding r 1.15A(3) of the Regulations at paragraphs [40] - [71] and that in any event express findings can be inferred from the Tribunal's reasons: Kanu v MIBP [2018] FCCA 435 at [44].

Paragraph [23] - failure to consider relevant evidence

1. At paragraph 23 of his submissions the Applicant alleges that the Tribunal failed to assess critical evidence relating to the genuine and continuing nature of his married relationship including: evidence of shared finances and household contributions; statutory declaration from friends, family, community members, and professionals attesting to the authenticity of the relationship; cultural, and medical circumstances that influenced their cohabitation arrangement.
2. I agree with the Minister's submission that this ground of review has not been properly particularised and that it is a basis to dismiss this ground of review: WZATH v MIBP [2014] FCCA 612 at [60] and upheld in WZATH v MIBP [2014] FCA 969.
3. The allegation that there was a failure to consider relevant evidence has no basis. The Tribunal considered the financial aspect of the relationship at paragraphs [41] - [50]. The attestations of friends, community members and professionals were considered at paragraphs [33] and [56] - [63] of the Tribunal's Reasons.
4. Despite a lack of particularisation of the cultural and medical assertion the Minister submitted that the Tribunal considered, at paragraphs [34] and [35] of it's decision, cultural identity as it was relevant to the Visa. This occurred in the context of the Tribunal assessing why the Sponsor may not have told her parents about the marriage initially. Firstly, that the Sponsor's family was Christian and the Applicant was Hindu and secondly, the Sponsor's own evidence that she did not know why she was too scared to tell her Father about the marriage.
5. I agree with the Minister's submission that the Tribunal's reasons illustrates that it had regard to a broad range of evidence submitted by the Applicant and the Tribunal took that evidence into account to the extent it was relevant when making its decision.
6. The Applicant is unable to establish a jurisdictional error with respect to the grounds contained in paragraph 23 of his submissions. This ground must be dismissed.

Paragraph [24] of the Applicant's written submissions - incorrect application of legal criteria

1. The Applicant asserts the Tribunal misapplied r 1.15A(3) of the Regulations in assessing the genuine and continuing nature of a relationship. Specifically by treating periods of non-cohabitation as indicative of a non-genuine relationship, despite clear explanations supported by evidence including the registration of the marriage under state law, medical circumstances being the Applicant's diagnosis, treatment for tuberculosis, cultural obligations and family resistance impacting their living arrangements.
2. One of the reasons why the Tribunal determined that the Applicant and Sponsor were not in a married relationship was the fact that they cohabited on the weekends in Grafton and otherwise lived separately.
3. The evidence was that the Sponsor lived in Grafton and the Applicant in Melbourne. The Applicant was a long-haul truck driver who would stop over in Grafton on a Friday or a Saturday before heading to Brisbane and sometimes stop over on a Monday on the return trip from Brisbane to Melbourne. The Sponsor gave evidence that she would not seriously entertain moving to Melbourne because of her carer responsibility to her Mother. The Tribunal did not accept the Sponsor's evidence in circumstances where the Sponsor's Father was fit, healthy, and active and in a position to support his wife. The Tribunal did not accept that the Applicant and Sponsor's living arrangement after six and a half years of marriage were adequately explained by the Sponsor's carer's responsibilities to her Mother.
4. The Tribunal found that although the Applicant and Sponsor presented themselves as a couple in Grafton, there was no evidence that the Sponsor had met the Applicants Melbourne based friends, or that she had travelled to Melbourne to be with him. The Tribunal was not convinced that the Applicant presented himself as genuinely married to his friends and acquaintances in Melbourne and that they did not appear to function socially or to be recognised as a married couple beyond Grafton and their immediate family members.
5. The Tribunal found that the sharing of everyday expenses occurred when the Applicant stopped over in Grafton and that the relationship between the Applicant and Sponsor was more akin that of a landlord and lodger than that of a married couple.
6. At paragraph [23] of its reasons the Tribunal accepted that the parties were married to each other for the purposes of section 5F(2)(a) of the Migration Act in that the Applicant had provided a registered marriage certificate certifying the Applicant and Sponsor were married on 21 March 2014.
7. On the matter of alleged family resistance impacting the living arrangements. The evidence before the Tribunal was that the Sponsor's parents accepted that she seemed happy, accepted the Applicant as their son-in-law, and supported the Applicant's visa application. The Sponsor gave evidence that she sometimes joined in on calls between the Applicant and his parents, but that she found it difficult to participate in calls because of the language barrier.
8. The Minister submitted that ultimately when assessing the genuine and continuing nature of the relationship the Tribunal found that the length of the marriage between the Sponsor and the Applicant was outweighed by other factors including that they lived separately most of the time.
9. The Applicant has not particularised the "cultural obligation" upon which he asserts impacted their living arrangements. He does not point to the evidence upon which he relies.
10. The Applicant's tuberculosis diagnosis occurred, according to the Applicant's submissions, in 2023. The decision of the Tribunal was made on 28 August 2020. The Applicant's tuberculosis diagnosis was not a matter before the Tribunal and where the diagnosis took place some three years after the Tribunal decision was made could not have been taken into account.
11. The Applicant has not been able to establish a jurisdictional error, the grounds in paragraph 24 of the Applicant's submission's must be dismissed.

Paragraph [25] of the Applicant's written submissions - lack of procedural fairness

1. The Applicant claims that he was not given a fair and reasonable opportunity to address critical aspects of evidence before the Tribunal. The Applicant submitted that the Tribunal relied on adverse information from informants without providing him with particulars or an opportunity to respond. He further submitted that the Tribunal made assumptions about his credibility and relationship with the Sponsor based on minor inconsistencies without giving weight to clarifying evidence or contextual explanations.
2. The Minister submitted with respect to the former of these allegations they cannot be maintained. It is apparent from the Tribunal's reasons that the Applicant was informed of the existence of certificates issued under sections 375A and 376 of the Migration Act which related to allegations made to the Department by more than one informant and that he was aware of the nature of the allegations. The Tribunal acknowledged that the Applicant had previously denied the allegations in earlier review proceedings. The Tribunal advised the Applicant that it had concerns regarding the allegations because they were not anonymous, the allegations were detailed, the informants were well informed about the Applicant's immigration history, and that the Tribunal was not satisfied that the Applicant had adequately addressed the concerns raised by the allegations. The Tribunal records in its reasons that the Applicant was offered the opportunity to seek an adjournment and consult with his representative at any time during the hearing. No adjournment was sought by the Applicant to consult with his representative.
3. Further, as submitted by the Minister, the Tribunal was not required to provide "full particulars" of the allegations as they were subject to the certificates but put the gist of the information to the Applicant.
4. The Applicant was not denied an opportunity to give evidence, make arguments nor was he deprived of the possibility of a successful outcome: Minister for Immigration and Border Protection v SZMTA [2019] HCA 3; (2019) 264 CLR 421 at [2].
5. With respect to the latter assertion on this ground, I accept the submissions of the Minister. The assertion is vague and lacks particularisation. The Applicant has failed to identify the "key assumptions" made by the Tribunal, the "minor inconsistencies" upon which the assumptions were allegedly based, the "clarifying evidence", or the "contextual explanations" that the Tribunal failed to give weight to.
6. The Applicant has not established a jurisdictional error with respect to the ground contained in paragraph 25 of his submissions, these grounds must be dismissed.

Paragraph [26] of the Applicant's written submissions - inadequate reasons and illogical reasoning

1. The Applicant contended that the Tribunal failed to provide "clear and rational reasons" for rejecting his evidence and placed undue weight on other matters, such as, the delay in registering his marriage and the absence of joint utility accounts, while ignoring cultural, medical and financial contexts.
2. The Tribunal did not rely upon the delay in registering the marriage as a basis for affirming the Decision. No such finding was made by the Tribunal.
3. The Tribunal did not rely upon the absence of joint utility accounts and acknowledged that it had evidence before it in the form of joint utility accounts. The Tribunal was not satisfied in light of other evidence that the parties' financial or living arrangements showed that they had established a joint household.
4. Again, there has been a failure of the Applicant to particularise what "cultural, medical and financial contexts" have been disregarded. It is submitted by the Minister that the Tribunal had regard to bank statements, the lack of joint assets and liabilities, and legal obligation to one another. I accept that submission.
5. The weight given to evidence is a matter for the Tribunal. I accept the submission of the Minister that there is nothing in the Tribunal's reasons that would allow a conclusion that it gave unreasonable weight to or did not consider the evidence before it.
6. The Applicant has not established a jurisdictional error on the part of the Tribunal with respect to the grounds raised in paragraph 26 of his submissions. These grounds must be dismissed.

Paragraphs [32] to [67] of the Applicant's written submissions - other matters raised by the applicant

1. The Applicant raised a number of other matters as ground for judicial review of the Tribunal's decision: his tuberculosis diagnosis in 2023; allegations of family violence committed against him by the Sponsor as a result of his tuberculosis diagnosis; the Applicant's contribution to the Australian community; and past failures of the legal process relating to his visa proceedings (including two decisions to remit the matter) which have impacted his life.
2. The Minister submitted that these matters are not relevant to the Tribunal's Decision, the Tribunal's function to undertake a merits review or this Court's function on judicial review. The Minister noted that the events and alleged matters post-date the Tribunal's Decision and therefore cannot be relevant considerations that the Tribunal should have taken into account. I accept this submission.
3. Furthermore, the Court cannot conduct a merits review. My task is confined to considering whether the Tribunal committed jurisdictional error.
4. These other matters raised by the Applicant must be dismissed as they either do not disclose a jurisdictional error or the matters post date the Tribunal's Decision.

1. The Applicant has failed to establish a jurisdictional error on the part of the Tribunal. The Application filed on 30 September 2019 must be dismissed.
2. The Minister sought costs in the amount of $7,467.00, that being the scale amount as prescribed in the previous Rules. This amount is lower than scale under the current Item 3, Division 1, Part 2 of Schedule 2 of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) (General Federal Law) Rules 2025 (Cth). Accordingly, the Applicant is to pay the Minister's costs in the sum of $7,467.00.
3. The Minister also sought that the name of the first and second respondent be amended to the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship and the Administrative Review Tribunal respectively.
4. Orders will be made accordingly.

I certify that the preceding one hundred and two (102) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of Judge Bingham.