Reddy v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2025] FedCFamC2G 1271

Note: The Court may vary or set aside a judgment or order to remedy minor typographical or grammatical errors (r 17.05(2)(g) Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) (General Federal Law) Rules 2021 (Cth)), or to record a variation to the order pursuant to r 17.05 Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) (General Federal Law) Rules 2021 (Cth).

1. Before the Court, is an application for judicial review of a decision of the Administrative Review Tribunal ("the Tribunal") by which the Tribunal affirmed a decision of a delegate of the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, (as the Minister was then called) ("the delegate"), to refuse to grant the applicant a Partner (Temporary) (Class UK) (Subclass 820) visa.

Application for a visa and the delegate's decision

1. The applicant is a citizen of India. The applicant arrived in Australia on 8 July 2014 on a Higher Education (Subclass 573) visa. He was subsequently granted a Vocational Education and Training (Subclass 572) visa on 24 November 2015, before being granted a Student (Subclass 500) visa on 29 November 2016. On 15 July 2018, the applicant made an application for a Partner (Temporary) (Class UK) (Subclass 820) visa ("the visa") and a Partner (Residence) (Class BC) (Subclass 801) visa on the basis of his relationship with an Australian citizen ("the sponsor") (Court Book ("CB") 1-44).
2. In support of his application, the applicant provided (inter alia) a submission by his registered migration agent; bank statements; a civil partnership certificate; photographs; property documents; tenancy agreements; a statement by the applicant; a statement and statutory declaration by the sponsor; and statutory declarations by supporting witnesses (CB 45-211).
3. On 30 May 2019, the Department requested the applicant provide statutory declarations by supporting witnesses and evidence of his relationship with the sponsor including evidence of the financial aspects of the relationship, the nature of the household, the social aspects of the relationship and the nature of their commitment to each other (CB 218-225). On 21 June 2019, the applicant provided bank statements, telephone bills, photographs, and a statutory declaration from a supporting witness (CB 226-296).
4. On 4 July 2019, the Department noted that it received an allegation that the applicant and the sponsor were no longer dating or living together and that the sponsor had been staying with her boyfriend (not the applicant) at a separate location. On 6 July 2019, the Department received a further allegation that the applicant has a wife located in India and that he and the sponsor were not in a relationship (CB 370).
5. On 14 November 2019, the Department received a further allegation that the applicant's relationship with the sponsor was contrived, specifically, that the applicant and sponsor had been in a relationship, but they had separated and that the sponsor was receiving payment for the sponsorship and that the sponsor was said to be in a relationship with another person with whom she lives, is engaged to and pregnant by (CB 370).
6. On 28 November 2019, the Department invited the applicant to comment on unfavourable information, specifically, that the applicant is no longer in a relationship with the sponsor, the relationship they are in is not exclusive, they are no longer living together, the relationship entered into was contrived for the sole purpose of gaining permanent residency in Australia and the sponsor is receiving financial reimbursements from the applicant to assist him in gaining permanent residency in Australia (CB 320-323). The applicant did not respond.
7. On 4 January 2020, the applicant's registered migration agent lodged a 'notification of change in circumstances' form advising that the sponsor would like to withdraw her sponsorship of the application as she and the applicant were no longer in a relationship (CB 324).
8. On 22 January 2020, the applicant lodged a 'notification of change in circumstances' form also advising that he and the sponsor were no longer in a relationship and stating that he had been a victim of domestic violence perpetrated by the sponsor for the entirety of the relationship (CB 325-328). The applicant provided evidence in support of this allegation (CB 329-335).
9. On 5 March 2020, the Department invited the applicant to comment on information for his visa application. The delegate noted that before assessing the applicant's claims of family violence, they must first be satisfied that the applicant was the spouse or de facto partner of the sponsor prior to the cessation of the relationship in January of 2020. They invited the applicant to provide written comment within 28 days (CB 344-347). On 1 April 2020, the applicant provided a statutory declaration detailing the timeline of his relationship with the sponsor (CB 350-351). The applicant also submitted two statutory declarations made by friends and witnesses to the relationship, both dated 31 March 2020 (CB 352-354).
10. On 22 December 2020, the Department invited the applicant, within 28 days, to comment on whether he satisfied Public Interest Criterion 4020 ("PIC 4020"), as there was evidence that suggested he had provided, or caused to be provided, false or misleading information in his partner visa application regarding the status of his relationship with the sponsor and where the sponsor was residing (CB 357-360). On 14 January 2021 the applicant provided a statutory declaration denying the allegations (CB 361-362).
11. The delegate was not satisfied that the applicant and the sponsor were in a de facto relationship that is valid for the purposes of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) ("the Act"). Further, the delegate was not satisfied that the applicant met the criteria in cl 820.211(2) of Schedule 2 of the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth) ("the Regulations") because the delegate was not satisfied that the applicant and the sponsor were in a de facto relationship within the meaning s 5CB of the Act having regard to the factors in reg 1.09A of the Regulations. Accordingly, the delegate refused to grant the visa ("delegate's decision").

Application for review to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal

1. On 18 June 2021, the applicant applied to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (as it then was) for a review of the delegate's decision (CB 415-421).
2. On 21 June 2021, the Tribunal acknowledged receipt of the application and advised the applicant that should he wish to provide material or written arguments for consideration, he should do so as soon as possible (CB 424-425).
3. On 1 October 2024, the Tribunal invited the applicant to attend a hearing on 28 October 2024 to give evidence and present arguments relating to the issues arising in his case, stating that it was unable to make a favourable decision based on the information before it alone (CB 436-438). The hearing was later rescheduled to 12 November 2024 (CB 440-442).
4. On 12 November 2024, the applicant attended the hearing at which he gave evidence (CB 449).
5. After the hearing on 12 November 2024, the Tribunal invited the applicant to provide them by 26 November 2024 any further information that the applicant believed might assist his case (CB 451). On 26 November 2024, the applicant provided a written statement to the Tribunal (CB 452).
6. On 2 December 2024, the Administrative Review Tribunal affirmed the delegate's decision and gave written reasons for its decision ("Decision") (CB 456-466).

1. The Tribunal identified that there is a two-stage process for onshore Partner visas: the visa applicant must first hold a provisional visa, enabling them to remain in Australia on a temporary basis, prior to the grant of a permanent visa and that the grant of a permanent visa generally depends on whether the relationship has continued for a period of at least two years. The Tribunal identified that it was considering the first, temporary stage [13].
2. The Tribunal stated that in considering a criterion that requires the definition of spouse or de facto partner to be met at the time of the visa application, the information supplied in relation to the reg 1.09A(3) matters may relate to circumstances after the time of application and that in forming a view of the relationship at the time of application, the Tribunal must consider all relevant evidence, which may include evidence of events after the date of application insofar as it assists in the task of determining whether the visa applicant and the sponsor were in a partner relationship at the time of the application. The Tribunal stated that evidence of events after the visa application is relevant if it tends logically to show the existence or non-existence of facts relevant to the issue to be determined [14].
3. The Tribunal identified that the issue in the present case is whether at the time of the visa application and the time of the Tribunal's decision, the applicant is the spouse or de facto partner of the sponsor [15].
4. As to whether the applicant and the sponsor are in a spouse or de facto relationship, the Tribunal stated that 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 review applicant is the spouse or de facto partner of an Australian citizen or Australian permanent resident or an eligible New Zealand citizen and that in this regard the applicant claims to be the de facto partner of the sponsor who is an Australian citizen [16].
5. The Tribunal referred to the definition of 'de facto partner' in 5CB of the Act [17] and stated that in forming an opinion whether the parties are in a de facto relationship, consideration must be given to all of the circumstances of the relationship. The Tribunal stated that 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 1.09A(3) and said that each of the specific matters contained in reg 1.09A(3) are effectively questions which must be answered (referring to He v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2017] FCAFC 206) [18]. As to persons claiming to be in a de facto relationship, the Tribunal stated that the parties must also meet the additional criteria in reg 2.03A which requires that both members of the couple be at least 18 years old. The Tribunal confirmed that the applicant and the sponsor were at least 18 years old [19]. The Tribunal was also satisfied that the applicant met the criteria in reg 2.03A(3), the parties having provided a copy of a Queensland Civil Partnership Certificate noting the registration of the civil partnership on 22 May 2018 [20] and [21].
6. The Tribunal went on to consider whether the other requirements for a partnership were met.
7. As to the financial aspects of the relationship, the Tribunal referred to the applicant's evidence including:

(a) Copies of statements from his Commonwealth Bank sole account for the period from 23 January 2018 to 5 June 2019 [22];

(b) Copies of statements from the sponsor's Suncorp Bank sole account for the period from 30 January 2018 to 5 July 2018 [23];

(c) Copies of bank statements from the Commonwealth Bank joint account of the parties for the period from its start date on 1 April 2019 until 5 June 2019 [24];

(d) The sponsor's income tax return for 2016/17 [25];

(e) Evidence of joint payment of the rental bond for the Southport property, when the parties started living as housemates, dated 1 June 2017 [25];

(f) A ledger in the names of the parties showing rental payments from 29 May 2017 to 22 July 2018. In this regard, the Tribunal noted that the evidence of the applicant is that the parties were housemates from May 2017 until their relationship began in January 2018 [25]; and

(g) Copies of the three tenancy agreements: the first from 29 May 2017 to 29 November 2017 in respect of a unit at Southport, Queensland; the second from 12 December 2017 to 12 June 2018 in respect of the same Southport unit; and the third from 30 November 2018 to 28 November 2019 in respect of premises at Coomera, Queensland [30].

1. The Tribunal referred to the sponsor's statement dated 5 July 2018 and the applicant's statement dated 11 July 2018 that the parties shared their costs equally, including rent, electricity, food and other regular expenses [26].
2. As to the bank statements, the Tribunal stated that the statements of both sole bank accounts show payments out of the respective accounts including for the phone account, groceries, fuel and rent and that the joint account statements show miscellaneous payments for fuel, food and retail purchases [27]. As to the two-month period covered by the joint account statements, the Tribunal observed that there were approximately 27 transfers into the joint account all of which were from the applicant's sole account totalling $978.32; the largest amount transferred was $90.00 and the least amount transferred was $2.00 [28].
3. The Tribunal stated that the parties appear to have paid most of their expenses from their respective sole accounts. The Tribunal found that the only payments to the joint account were from the applicant, the sponsor never contributing to the joint account [29].
4. The Tribunal found that in relation to the financial aspects of the relationship, the parties did not have joint ownership of real estate or any other major assets; there was no evidence that the parties had joint liabilities; the joint account was not established until April 2019 whereas the visa application was made on 15 July 2018; there was minimal evidence of the pooling of financial resources [31].
5. The Tribunal concluded that there was no persuasive evidence of any genuine financial relationship between the parties at the date of application and found that it was not satisfied that the financial arrangements are consistent with the financial situation of a committed and genuine partner relationship [32] and [44]. The Tribunal said that it placed limited weight on the financial aspects of the relationship [32].
6. As to the nature of the household, the Tribunal stated that the applicant's evidence was that the parties moved into an apartment together in May 2017 as housemates at which time they undertook household duties independently of each other. The applicant's evidence was that their relationship as a couple commenced on 24 January 2018. Following the commencement of their relationship, the applicant stated that they carried out household tasks together including cooking, cleaning and shopping [33].
7. The Tribunal referred to the three tenancy agreements and said that having carefully considered all the evidence, it was of the view there is no persuasive evidence the parties lived together as a de facto couple, or that they had living arrangements consistent with that of a genuine and committed partner relationship [34]. The Tribunal said that whilst there is evidence that the parties may have resided in the same property, this was not evidence that they shared the household of a de facto couple or of the living arrangements of parties in a genuine partner relationship. The Tribunal said that it placed limited weight on the household aspects of the relationship [35] and [45].
8. As to the social aspects of the relationship, the Tribunal referred to the three statutory declarations by supporting witnesses, including from the sponsor's mother and sister and a friend of the sponsor who moved into their house to live with them in May 2019 and stated that they had known each of the parties for approximately six months [36].
9. The Tribunal also referred to the number of photographs provided by the parties of themselves together and in the company of family members and friends [37].
10. The Tribunal said that it accepted that the evidence shows the parties represented themselves to other people as being in a relationship, albeit to a limited group of people and that they have undertaken joint social activities. The Tribunal said that it placed some weight on the social aspects of the relationship [38].
11. As to the nature of the parties' commitment to each other, the Tribunal referred to evidence that the applicant first met the sponsor on 31 December 2016, commenced living together as housemates in May 2017 and commenced a committed de facto relationship on 24 January 2018 and that the parties provided a Civil Partnership Certificate with the date of registration being 22 May 2018 [41].
12. The Tribunal said that as the parties have been permanently separated for more than five years, the relationship is at an end. In those circumstances, the Tribunal, said that it did not place any weight on the nature of the parties' commitment to each other at the time of the Tribunal's decision [43].
13. The Tribunal said that, having carefully considered all the evidence, in relation to the nature of the commitment in the relationship, it concluded that the degree of companionship and emotional support the parties drew from each other was minimal. The Tribunal said it was not satisfied that the parties had a mutual commitment to a shared life to the exclusion of all others, or that the nature of the parties' commitment to each other was consistent with a genuine and continuing partner relationship [46].
14. The Tribunal then went on to consider the applicant's interaction with the Department about the breakdown of the relationship and the applicant's evidence at the hearing about this as follows:

(a) On 4 July 2019, the Department received an allegation that the parties' relationship had broken down. There was no record that the applicant notified the Department of this change of circumstances in his relationship. At the hearing, the applicant agreed that he first informed the Department of the breakdown in the relationship on 22 January 2020 and claimed at that time that he had been subject to family violence by the sponsor [47];

(b) The Tribunal referred the applicant to the fact that, in spite of the relationship breakdown and the separation from the sponsor, he not only failed to inform the Department, but continued to correspond and deal with the Department in the matter of his partner visa application [48] and [49];

(c) The Tribunal noted that letters from the Department stipulated the requirement on the applicant to inform the Department of any change in his circumstances [50];

(d) The applicant's oral evidence was that it did not occur to him that he should not be proceeding if the relationship had broken down. He stated that he was under the belief that the sponsor and her family had already informed the Department of their separation. He further stated that he did not know what steps to take or what his rights were and went on to say that he had consulted a lawyer at the time and informed the lawyer of the separation. His recollection is that this took place in about August/September 2019, about 1-2 months after separation. He stated that the lawyer told him that his application for a visa would be refused and he would have to leave. He then stated that he thought the lawyer had informed the Department of the change in circumstances [51] and [52].

(e) The Tribunal put to the applicant that given the advice from the lawyer in August/September 2019, he should have known that the process would not be continuing. He stated that he presumed the Department knew of the relationship breakdown and did not think of telling them himself. He again claimed not to have known of his obligation to inform the Department of the relationship breakdown [53].

(f) The Tribunal referred the applicant to his statutory declaration of 1 April 2020 in particular, when discussing problems which he alleges had occurred in the relationship and with the sponsor's family, he stated, "It seemed I had no choice but to stay in the relationship. My stay here was jeopardised; I lost my opportunity to apply visa myself (sic)" [54]. The applicant stated to the Tribunal that what he meant by this was, that if he had remained as a student and not entered the relationship with the sponsor, there may have been another visa pathway for him to continue to remain in Australia [55].

1. The Tribunal then referred to a post hearing statement by the applicant in which he stated that he had never intended to mislead the Department and that his inaction at the time was "... not due to deceit but rather fear, confusion, and a lack of knowledge about my legal options. Unfortunately, her family also made false accusations about me, openly declaring their intent to report lies to immigration" [56].
2. The Tribunal further noted that on 28 June 2019 (around the time of the breakdown of the relationship), both the applicant and the sponsor each lodged a Form 929 Change of Address Details document, informing the Department of their change of address. The Tribunal said this suggested that the applicant was well aware of his obligations to keep the Department informed of any changes in his circumstances [57].
3. The Tribunal said that it formed the view that the applicant was fully cognisant of the fact that the continuation of the relationship with the sponsor was the basis upon which he would be allowed to remain in Australia. Further, the Tribunal formed the view that, despite being aware of his obligations to notify the Department of the fact that the relationship ended, the applicant intentionally chose not to do so in the hope of progressing his application [58].
4. The Tribunal found that the evidence given by the applicant in relation to his reasons for not informing the Department of the breakdown of the relationship, were inconsistent, evasive, unhelpful and vague. In this regard, the Tribunal found the applicant not to be a truthful or credible witness [59].
5. The Tribunal concluded that, having considered all the evidence, it was not satisfied that at the time of application, the parties had a mutual commitment to a shared life as a de facto couple to the exclusion of all others; that the relationship between them was genuine and continuing; and that they lived together and not separately or apart on a permanent basis. The Tribunal said that it was therefore not satisfied the requirements of section 5CB(2) of the Act were met the time of the visa application and was not satisfied that at the time the visa application the parties were in a de facto partner relationship as defined in the Act and that therefore, the applicant did not meet the criterion in cl.820.211(2)(a) [65] and [66].
6. The Tribunal said that it noted that the applicant alleges he suffered family violence during the relationship. However, the Tribunal said that given its conclusion in relation to cl.820.211(2)(a), there was no need for it to make a finding on the family violence issue at the time of decision because the relevant de facto relationship must have existed at the time of application before it can be determined that it has ceased on account of family violence. Accordingly, the Tribunal said that it made no finding in relation to whether family violence occurred as it had found the applicant does not satisfy the threshold criteria to be in a de facto partner relationship at the time of application [67].
7. The Tribunal concluded that it was therefore not satisfied that the parties' relationship fulfilled the criteria contained in cl 820.211(2)(a) at the time the visa application was made and at the time of this decision and that therefore, the applicant does not meet the requirements of cl 820.211(2) and cl 820.221(1). The Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicant a Partner (Temporary) (Class UK) visa [68] and [71].

1. These proceedings were commenced pursuant to s 476(1) of the Act by application filed on 31 December 2024. The applicant also filed an affidavit on 31 December 2024. The affidavit repeats the grounds of review in the application, annexes a copy of the delegate's decision, annexes a copy of the Tribunal's decision and includes written submissions in support of the application.
2. Procedural orders were made permitting the applicant to file and serve an amended application with proper particulars and any additional evidence on which he seeks to rely and requiring the applicant to file and serve written submissions. The first respondent was ordered to file and serve written submissions and any additional evidence on which it seeks to rely. Orders were also made as to the preparation, filing, and service of a Court Book.
3. The material before the Court was the application, the applicant's affidavit, the first respondent's response, the first respondent's written submissions and the Court Book. Before the hearing commenced, the Court confirmed with the applicant that he had these documents in Court with him.
4. The applicant appeared in person unrepresented.

1. For the applicant to be successful the Court must be satisfied that the Tribunal's decision is affected by material jurisdictional error.
2. The Court explained to the applicant that the role of the Court was limited to determining whether the Tribunal had made a legal or procedural error and that the role of the Court on judicial review is not to decide whether on the evidence before the Tribunal the Court considers that the applicant should or should not be granted the visa.
3. The applicant did not file an amended application. The grounds of review set out in the application are (without alteration):
   1. I Rajashekhar Narayana Reddy (The Applicant) an Indian Citizen say on oath [*or] affirm: I am the applicant, I am Making this Affidavit.
   2. The applicant applied for the Partner (Temporary) (Class UK) (Subclass 820) and a Partner (Residence) (Class BS) (Subclass 801) visa on 15 July 2018 on the grounds of being in a partner relationship with an Australian citizen, Tanayah Margaret MILLER, who lodged a sponsorship in support of the application.
   3. Unfortunately, the delegate refused to grant the visa on 1 June 2021 with the below reasons, as you do not meet the definition of spouse or de facto partner under section 5F or 5CB of the Migration Act I am therefore not satisfied that you meet subclause 820.211(2)(a) of the Migration Regulations. Consequently, you do not meet clause 820.211, which is a criterion that must be satisfied by you at the time of application.
   4. Unsatisfied with the outcome, the applicant decided to take this matter to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal which is now Administrative Review Tribunal on 18 June 2021.
   5. Tribunal invited applicant on 12 November 2024 to give evidence and present arguments and Tribunal member considered the claims and evidence but affirmed the decision not to grant the applicant a partner (Temporary) (class UK) Visa. Unsatisfied with the outcome.
   6. The Administrative Review Tribunal failed to consider and apply the family violence provisions under the Migration Regulations 1994, specifically subclauses 820.211(8) and 820.221(6) of the Migration Regulations, which allow a visa to be granted if the applicant or a dependent child has suffered family violence committed by the sponsoring partner.
   7. Under Migration Regulation 820.211(8), a visa applicant may be eligible for a Partner visa if they have experienced family violence committed by the sponsoring partner. The regulation allows for a visa to be granted even if the de facto relationship has ended, provided the applicant can demonstrate that family violence occurred.
   8. The applicant requests that the Federal Court review and overturn the Administrative Review Tribunal decision or remit the matter for reconsideration, ensuring that all claims, particularly those relating to family violence, are properly considered.
4. Whilst the application enumerates eight grounds of review, the thrust of the applicant's case is that the Tribunal failed to consider and apply the 'family violence provisions' in clause 820.211(8). The Court notes that the reference in this regard to clause 820.221(6) must be an error as this clause does not exist. The applicant's written submissions (set out in the applicant's affidavit) also repeat and rely on failure to consider and apply the 'family violence provisions' as the ground of review.
5. The applicant did not otherwise file any written submissions in accordance with the Court's procedural orders. However, the applicant was afforded the opportunity to make oral submissions in support of his application and in reply to the first respondent's submissions. In oral submissions, the applicant repeated his contention that the Tribunal failed to consider the 'family violence provisions' but also contended that the Tribunal erred in concluding only the evidence of joint bank statements and in considering his personal bank statements. The applicant also contended that the Tribunal did not consider or understand that he did not know what steps to take in his communications with the Department when the relationship came to an end. The court has considered all three grounds

Ground One: Failure to consider the 'family violence provisions' in clause 820.211(8)

1. As the first respondent correctly submitted, clause 820.211(8) cannot apply as the applicant was not the holder of a prospective marriage visa.
2. As the first respondent submitted, the applicant's contention must be that the Tribunal should have considered his claims relating to family violence under clause 820.221(3) (first respondent's submissions ("FRS") [27]). At the relevant time, cl 820.221(3) provided:

820.22 Criteria to be satisfied at time of decision

(3) An applicant meets the requirements of this subclause if:

(a) the applicant would continue to meet the requirements of subclause 820.211(2), (5) or (6) except that the relationship between the applicant and the sponsoring partner has ceased; and

(b) either or both of the following circumstances applies:

(i) either or both of the following:

1. the applicant;

2. ... has experienced family violence committed by the sponsoring partner;

(ii) the applicant...

1. The Tribunal was not satisfied that a de facto relationship existed within the meaning of s 5CB(2) of the Act at the time of the application. The Court agrees with the first respondent's submission (FRS [33] referring to Kaur v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2014] FCA 1251 at [43]- [44]) that the question of family violence did not arise for the Tribunal's consideration because the Tribunal was not satisfied that the parties were in a de facto relationship at the time of the application. The Court also agrees with the first respondent's submission (FRS [33] referring to Kaur v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2014] FCA 1251 at [44]) that there is little utility in the Tribunal considering the issue of family violence unless a de facto relationship is first established. Accordingly, the Tribunal's approach (at [67]) that it need not make a finding on whether family violence had occurred as it had found the applicant did not satisfy the threshold criteria to be in a de facto relation at the time of the application discloses no jurisdictional error.
2. No jurisdictional error is established on ground one.

Ground Two: Failure to consider the applicant's personal bank statements

1. The court does not agree with the applicant's contention that the Tribunal referred only to the parties' joint bank statement and did not consider the evidence of his personal bank statement when assessing the financial aspects of the parties' relationship. The Tribunal considered the evidence of the applicant's personal bank statements and transfers from that account to the joint account at [28]-[29] and concluded that most of the expenses were paid from the parties' sole accounts. The Tribunal's conclusions were clearly open to it on the evidence.
2. Otherwise, the Tribunal's assessment of the factors in reg 1.09A do not show any error in the Tribunal's approach to those factors on the evidence before it. The conclusions it reached were open to it on the evidence and were neither unreasonable, irrational or illogical. The Court agrees with and adopts the first respondent's submissions (FRS [34]-[36]) in relation to the Tribunal's assessment of the factors in reg 1.09A(3) on the evidence before it.
3. No jurisdictional error is established on ground two.

Ground Three: The applicant did not know his obligations to inform the Department as to his changed circumstances

1. This contention is not borne out on the evidence before the Tribunal. The Tribunal carefully considered the applicant's interactions with the Department and the evidence the applicant gave at the hearing as to why he did not tell the Department until 22 January 2020 that the relationship had ended and his evidence that he thought the sponsor, her family or his lawyer had done so and, also considered the applicant's post hearing statement ([47]-[55]). The Tribunal concluded that the applicant was cognisant of the fact that the nomination of his relationship with the sponsor was the basis upon which he would be allowed to remain in Australia and that the applicant intentionally chose not to tell the Department that the relationship had ended ([58]). This conclusion was reasonably open to the Tribunal on the evidence before it.
2. No jurisdictional error is established on the basis of the applicant's contention in this regard. In any event, the Tribunal had found, having regard to the factors in reg 1.09A, that the parties were not in a de facto relationship at the time of the application, there being no dispute that the relationship had in fact come to an end when it did.

1. Accordingly, for the reasons given above no jurisdictional error is established and accordingly, the application is dismissed.

I certify that the preceding sixty-five (65) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of Judge Coulthard.