1. The applicant applied for a partner visa on 20 August 2013.
2. According to the delegate's decision record, on 16 June 2014 two integrity officers of the Department conducted an unannounced site visit at the applicant and sponsor's home address. The officers interviewed the applicant and he informed them that the sponsor was not at home because her mother was in jail and she was looking after her mother's house.
3. The sponsor subsequently attended the Department for an interview on 26 June 2014.
4. The delegate was not satisfied that the applicant and sponsor were in a genuine and continuing relationship and accordingly found that the applicant was not in a spousal relationship with the sponsor.
5. On 3 October 2014 the delegate refused to grant the applicant a partner visa.

1. The applicant was represented in his first application for review before the AAT. Both the applicant and sponsor gave oral evidence to the AAT.
2. The AAT was not satisfied that the applicant and sponsor were in a genuine spousal relationship and in September 2015 affirmed the decision not to grant the applicant a partner visa. In its decision, the AAT cited in particular the following in deciding the applicant and sponsor were not in a genuine spousal relationship at the time the application was made:
   • that the parties gave unsatisfactory evidence about the amount of rent they pay;
   • that the sponsor did not know how much the applicant earned;
   • insufficient evidence that the parties combined finances;
   • the delegate's findings that the parties did not live together;
   • limited evidence of social aspects of the relationship;
   • that the applicant did not know when the sponsor's mother was released from jail; and
   • that the applicant didn't know whose car the sponsor was driving when the sponsor was arrested.

1. The applicant appealed the first AAT decision to the Federal Circuit Court, which dismissed the application on 25 May 2016.[3]
2. The applicant appealed this decision to the Federal Court.
3. The applicant and Minister agreed for the matter to be remitted to the AAT by consent, and the Court made an order to that effect on 26 June 2017. The Court noted that the AAT had denied the applicant procedural fairness of the kind found in Minister for Immigration and Border Protection v Singh,[4] in the circumstances that the Department had issued a s 375A non-disclosure certificate the existence of which was not disclosed to the applicant, and that at least some of the documents which were covered by the certificate were relevant, or potentially relevant, to the issues arising on the review by the AAT.

1. The applicant and the sponsor gave oral evidence before the AAT during the second review before the AAT.
2. At the time of the hearing, the sponsor's mother and stepfather had recently appeared before the same member of the AAT in a hearing on the stepfather's partner visa application for which the mother was the sponsor. While giving evidence in the stepfather's application for review, the sponsor's mother said that the sponsor was in a relationship with another man, later referred to by the Court as 'Mr X'. The AAT had remitted the sponsor's stepfather's partner visa application to the Department the day before the applicant and sponsor appeared before the Tribunal to give evidence in their own application.
3. In affirming the decision to refuse the applicant a partner visa, the AAT noted many inconsistencies between the applicant and sponsor's evidence and ultimately concluded that the parties were not in a genuine spousal relationship.

1. The applicant appealed the second AAT decision to the Federal Circuit and Family Court.
2. The applicant raised three grounds of appeal:
   1. That a fair-minded lay observer might reasonably apprehend that the Tribunal may not have brought an impartial mind to the applicant's review. In simple terms, the applicant contends apprehended bias on the part of the Tribunal.
   2. The Tribunal failed to consider a number of matters which the applicant claims were squarely raised and clearly articulated. Those matters related to aspects of the relationship the Tribunal was required to consider in respect of the nature of the commitment to each other, social aspects of the relationship, and nature of the household.
   3. The Tribunal failed to apply an active intellectual process, or proper, genuine and realistic consideration of the consequences of joint leases held by the applicant and his wife.
3. With respect to the first ground, the applicant alleged that the AAT's decision was affected by apprehended bias. He submitted that the AAT's decision on the sponsor's stepfather's application for review was made the day before the applicant's hearing, and, as summarised by the Court,[5] the AAT was 'in a position where it either accepted [the sponsor's mother and stepfather]'s affirmed evidence on the issue, or it accepted the evidence of the applicant and his wife. The applicant submitted that the Tribunal's mind was made up before the entirety of the evidence in the applicant's matter had been advanced for consideration.'
4. The Court found that the AAT's decision was affected by apprehended bias.
5. As the applicant had succeeded on ground 1, the Court noted it may not be strictly necessary to consider grounds 2 and 3 but nevertheless was satisfied that both grounds were made out.
6. On 14 February 2025 the Court remitted the application to the Tribunal.[6]

1. On 26 September 2025 the Tribunal notified the applicant that a hearing on the application had been scheduled for 19 November 2025. The hearing notice included the following:

The Member may wish to take evidence from Kayla Ann Smith during the hearing.

Please arrange for Kayla Ann Smith to attend the hearing, and please include in your response a telephone number and email for them.

1. On 30 September 2025 the applicant provided a response to hearing notice and returned the hearing form. The applicant indicated that he would take part in the hearing scheduled for 19 November 2025, however at Part 2, which asks whether there is any issue that may affect the applicant's ability to take part in the hearing and whether the applicant will experience difficulty participating in the hearing, he answered 'yes', noting:

I have high allergy issues and I have urology issues. I have my surgeries due in November. > > ... > > Please shift this hearing to January. I have urology surgery due in November first mid. I have waited more than 6 months for surgery. Also I have high allergy specialist appointment in November. Please shift it to January.

2. At Part 3 of the form, which asks 'do you intend to rely on any documents at the hearing, e.g. written witness statements, written submissions, country information, or other evidence?' the applicant responded:

I will submit some witness documents, some health documents. As our health is fully affected because of the stress throughout years.

1. The applicant indicated that the sponsor would not attend the hearing.
2. On 1 October 2025 the Tribunal requested the applicant provide the Tribunal with evidence of his surgery and appointment with his allergy specialist so the Tribunal would be able to consider his request to postpone the hearing.
3. On 3 October 2025 the applicant emailed the Tribunal with two attachments. The first was a letter for an allergy appointment. It noted that the applicant had an appointment on 13 November at 3:45pm and that, preferably, skin tests would be performed immediately after the initial consultation, however the need for prick skin testing for allergy would be determined during the initial consultation. It noted that tests take between 30 - 60 minutes to complete.
4. The second attachment regarded a urology surgery. The first page contained a patient health questionnaire and anaesthetic surgical assessment. The applicant noted on the questionnaire that it was completed for a urology procedure. The applicant noted on that page in the 'Allergies' section that he had 'high dust allergy'.
5. The second page of the attachment, dated 1 September 2025, advised the applicant that he had been placed on the elective waiting list of Urology at Modbury Hospital. The letter noted that the hospital would ensure wherever possible that the applicant is allocated to an appropriate medical officer with the shortest waiting time or contact him during the periods when administrative reviews of the waiting lists are being undertaken to find out if he still requires surgery. Nothing in this attachment indicated that this surgery was fixed for a specific date, which the applicant conceded in his email, though the applicant noted that the hospital indicated the procedure would be early November. As of the date of the hearing in November the applicant had not undergone this surgery.
6. On 6 October 2025 the Tribunal responded to the applicant as follows:

The Deputy President constituted to your matter requests further information from your treating physician to confirm you would be unfit to attend a hearing on Wednesday 19 November following the allergy test on 13 November. If so, the letter should indicate the treating physician's assessment of when you would be fit to attend a hearing. > > I understand that at this stage the urology surgery does not have a fixed date. The Deputy President has advised that if the urology surgery is confirmed and this conflicts with the proposed hearing she will consider any further request for an adjournment, but would not do so on the basis of a waitlisting for surgery.

7. Later that same day the applicant noted that he had an appointment with the allergist on 13 November 2025 and asked if it would be acceptable for the allergist to write a letter then.
8. On 7 October 2025 the Tribunal advised that was not appropriate and that the doctor should provide a letter now, indicating that the applicant would be unfit for a hearing the following week. The Tribunal wrote that if any changes arose following the appointment on 13 November 2025, then the Tribunal could consider his request with new supporting information.
9. On 7 October 2025 the Tribunal issued a direction ordering the applicant to provide evidence by 4 November 2025. The evidence included a statement from the review applicant describing how the relationship started and its current status, and any additional evidence relied upon in support of the claimed relationship at the time of application and time of decision. The attachment to the direction provided examples of evidence that may be provided and assist the Tribunal considering the application.
10. The Tribunal considered the applicant's request for postponement and relisted the hearing for the following week, on 26 November 2025. As noted in its first hearing notice, the notice indicated the Tribunal noted it may wish to take evidence from the sponsor and that the applicant should provide contact details for her and arrange for her to attend the hearing.
11. On 11 November 2025 the Tribunal sent the applicant the following correspondence:

On 7 October 2025 the Tribunal sent you a direction which ordered you to provide information and documents by 4 November 2025. > > The notes to the direction stated that if you did not comply with the directions by that date, the Tribunal may dismiss your application for review without further consideration of the application or the information before us, or make a decision on the review without holding a hearing. > > The Tribunal has not received any information in response to that direction. > > The Tribunal notes your hearing has been scheduled for 26 November 2025. The Tribunal has extended time for you to comply with the direction to 19 November 2025. This means you should provide the information and documents noted in the direction by 19 November 2025, 7 days before the hearing. Please note that if you do not comply with the direction by that date, the Tribunal may dismiss your application for review without further consideration of the application or the information before us, or make a decision on the review without holding a hearing. > > The Tribunal is also yet to receive the hearing response form. Please provide the hearing response form to the Tribunal by 19 November 2025.

12. Later that same day the applicant said he had already submitted the hearing response form.
13. In response, the Tribunal noted that the hearing response form provided on 3 October 2025 related to the previous hearing date of 19 November, and that on 10 October 2025 the hearing was relisted. The Tribunal noted this hearing notice contained a new hearing response form in relation to the new hearing and requested this hearing response form be provided.
14. On 18 November 2025 the applicant provided the hearing response form. He stated that he would attend the hearing with a witness, Deepak Mehta, and that the sponsor would not attend the hearing. The applicant did not say why the sponsor would not attend the hearing and did not request the hearing be postponed to enable the sponsor to attend. Further, the applicant said he did not need an interpreter and said he did not intend to rely on any documents at the hearing.
15. On 21 November 2025 the Tribunal issued a further direction to the applicant to provide evidence. This direction was in similar terms to the earlier direction but referred specifically to the applicant providing a statement from the sponsor detailing the history and status of the relationship, a written statement from Mr Mehta setting out his evidence and statements from any other proposed witnesses to be provided prior to the scheduled hearing.
16. The applicant replied by email on 24 November 2025 stating that he had received the reissued direction requesting 'a couple of weeks' extension to comply with the direction including asking Mr Mehta to take time off work to prepare a statement and 'some time to frame my relationship status, future plans' noting he did not have any migration agent. Later that day he sent a message saying Mr Mehta would be available on 15 December 2025 and 16 December 2025.
17. On 24 November 2025 the Tribunal responded to the applicant. The Tribunal noted that it had sent a direction on 7 October 2025 which ordered him to provide information and documents by 4 November 2025. That direction requested that he provide the Tribunal with a statement describing his relationship, any additional evidence relied upon in support of the claimed relationship at the time of the application and the time of decision, and that all evidence from the review applicant, the visa applicant or their witnesses must be set out in a written statement. The Tribunal did not receive a response to this direction. The Tribunal noted that on 11 November 2025 the Tribunal sent an email extending the time to reply to the direction to 19 November 2025 and that the Tribunal was yet to receive a hearing response form. The Tribunal noted that the applicant had replied on 11 November 2025 that he had provided a hearing response form, but he did not raise that he had not received the direction sent on 7 October 2025. The email to the applicant noted that on 18 November 2025 he provided a hearing response form for the hearing scheduled for 26 November 2025 indicating that he would attend the hearing with his witness, Deepak Mehta. He also indicated he would not provide any documents at the hearing. The email noted that the Tribunal sent a further direction on 21 November 2025 requesting the documents noted above to be provided by 12:00 pm on 25 November 2025.
18. The Tribunal's email noted that on 24 November 2025 the applicant wrote to the Tribunal (as above) asking for an extension of time to provide a response to the direction and for a postponement of the hearing. The letter indicated that the hearing would proceed as scheduled on 26 November 2025 and that the applicant should attend at the Tribunal for the hearing. The Tribunal noted the applicant had indicated he would like Mr Mehta to give evidence and that the applicant should ensure Mr Mehta was available to give evidence during the scheduled hearing. The email noted the applicant should provide the material requested in directions prior to the hearing and if he was unable to do so this could be discussed with the Tribunal at the hearing. A further email provided details for Mr Mehta to provide evidence via MS Teams.
19. The Tribunal did not receive any evidence in response to its directions.
20. The hearing took place at the Adelaide Registry of the Tribunal on 25 November 2025. The applicant attended that hearing alone. He said Mr Mehta was not attending the hearing. When the Tribunal questioned why the sponsor had not provided any evidence and did not attend the hearing he said she was not mentally well and normally she would come but she had enough as they had spent years through same process. He confirmed they were no longer living together but told the Tribunal they were still in a relationship.
21. No evidence from the sponsor or Mr Mehta was provided as to the status of the relationship at the time of the Tribunal's consideration of the matter. Although the applicant referred to the sponsor suffering from mental health issues, including preventing her from giving evidence, no medical evidence was provided to support the contention that the sponsor was unable to provide a statement or attend the hearing. The applicant also referred on several occasions, including in response to the hearing notice, that he was suffering from mental health issues. However, no medical evidence was offered in support of those contentions and the Tribunal did not accept on the evidence before it that the applicant was impeded by any mental health issue from presenting his case before the Tribunal, including in giving evidence and making submissions.
22. At the hearing the Tribunal explained to the applicant the information it had before it noting that the applicant had provided no evidence in response directions issued by the Tribunal which included details of the sorts of evidence which may assist the Tribunal in considering the application for review. Copies of the directions were provided to the applicant at the hearing. The Tribunal noted that the most recent evidence before the Tribunal was from 2019 which was 6 and a half years prior to the hearing. This included that there was no recent evidence from the sponsor before the Tribunal addressing the status of the relationship and the factors relevant to meeting the criteria for the visa.
23. At the conclusion of the hearing the Tribunal told the applicant it would provide some additional time for further evidence and for an opportunity for the sponsor and Mr Mehta and any other proposed witnesses to give evidence. The Tribunal noted that for time of application and time of decision and would need to have a statement from the sponsor to be satisfied that the criteria are met at the time of decision. The Tribunal noted that even if it were to accept the criteria were met at the time of application it would still need to be satisfied that there was a genuine spousal relationship at the time of decision noting that the information on the status of the relationship was now more than 6 years old. The Tribunal gave the applicant further time to provide this evidence and listed a further hearing for this purpose. No evidence was provided and the applicant did not attend the adjourned hearing.
24. The Tribunal also noted it would be difficult for the Tribunal to be satisfied the time of decision criteria were met without current evidence from the sponsor and in reliance or material provided more than 6 years prior to the hearing.
25. The Tribunal explained that there were limited circumstances need to be satisfied that the time of criteria are also met The Tribunal outlined for the applicant the limited circumstances, whereby an applicant may meet the criteria for the grant of a visa notwithstanding the relationship criteria were not met at the time of decision, namely where:[7]
    • The relationship ceased to exist because the sponsoring partner dies;
    • The sponsoring partner has committed domestic/family violence against the applicant or a member of the applicant's family unit; or
    • Both the applicant and the sponsoring partner have an ongoing connection to a child.
26. The Tribunal noted the applicant had not provided any evidence to suggest that these circumstances were relevant to his case and that this meant the Tribunal would have to be satisfied that the relationship criteria were met at the time of decision in order for him to meet the criteria for the visa. Accordingly, the Tribunal reiterated that it would need evidence from the sponsor addressing the issues set out in the directions and that it would allow time and set a further hearing for evidence addressing those concerns. The applicant indicated he understood this.
27. Following the hearing, copies of the directions were emailed to the applicant noting the directions addressed the matters the Tribunal must take into consideration in making its decision, the issues that the applicant and sponsor's statements should address, and examples of supporting documentary evidence. The email confirmed that any further information or documents should be provided by Wednesday 10 December 2025 and explained how the documents could be submitted.
28. On 2 December 2025 the Tribunal issued a notice for the hearing to be resumed on 19 December 2025 with the applicant appearing from the Adelaide registry. The notice indicated that the Tribunal may wish to take evidence from Kayla Ann Smith, Rattan Singh and Deepak Mehta during the hearing so the applicant should arrange them to attend the hearing. It also noted that statements for those witnesses should be provided by 10 December 2025 as discussed at the hearing on 25 November 2025.
29. At 4:53 pm AWST on 10 December the applicant emailed the Tribunal to request an extension of time to provide the material. The applicant notes it was 'more than half done' and that only a few things had to be completed.
30. On 11 December 2025 the Tribunal issued a further direction to the applicant (in similar terms to previous directions issued in the matter and discussed at the 26 November 2025 hearing) to provide evidence by 17 December 2025, including:

A statement from the sponsor, Kayla Ann Smith, describing the relationship, which included, but is not limited to:

• how and when the relationship started and developed;
• the current status of the relationship;
• current living arrangements and residential address. If you do not currently live together, details of any periods you have you lived together in the past and how you maintain contact with each other while you are living apart;
• examples of how you and your partner draw companionship and emotional support from each other;
• any future plans you and your partner have made for your relationship.

Evidence supporting the claimed relationship including, but not limited to:

• personal and joint bank statements for the applicant and sponsor for the six months prior to and after the time of application and for the 12 months prior to the time of decision;
• Evidence as to any Centrelink payments or other government support payments being received by the sponsor and relationship status recorded with Centrelink; and
• Any other evidence on which the applicant seeks to rely in support of the claimed relationship.

Evidence from proposed witness Deepak Mehta set out in a written statement. And evidence from any other proposed witnesses set out in a written statement.

1. No evidence was provided in response to this direction.
2. On Monday 15 December 2025 the applicant returned the hearing response form for the adjourned hearing. That form indicated the applicant, and sponsor would attend the hearing on 19 December 2025 but that Mr Mehta and Mr Singh would not attend. On the form in answer to the question regarding whether there was any issue that might impact the applicant's ability to take part in the hearing he ticked 'yes' and wrote:

I will attend hearing, my cousin brother passed away 13th dec. im still in shock. I will try to answer what i can but im Not in condition to attend it for long. He raised me in his hands and he is no more. Hope tou understand

He indicated he did not intend to rely on any documents at the hearing.

1. On 19 December 2025 just prior to the scheduled time for the hearing, the applicant emailed the Tribunal as follows:

Unfortunately i cant attend today's hearing. Im having a hey fever with chesty cough and cold. My eyes are watering and i cant manage to talk in this situation. Please if possible. Try to shift it tomorrow. Thanks

2. In response the Tribunal scheduled the hearing to the morning of Monday 22 December 2025. The Tribunal wrote to the applicant notifying him of the rescheduling hearing on 22 December 2025 and noting:

The Deputy President requires a doctor's certificate indicating you are unable to attend the hearing today, noting that a certificate stating that you are 'unfit to work' is insufficient. If any further postponements are required, the Deputy President may need to take evidence from your doctor.

3. The applicant did not attend the adjourned hearing at the scheduled time and place. Tribunal records indicate that the applicant was contacted to query his whereabouts. He indicated he had received the Tribunal's email of 19 December 2025 but was 'taking medicines'. He indicated that due to illness he was still unable to attend. He indicated he did not attend a doctor on Friday 19 December 2025 and could not provide a certificate for his non-attendance on that day. Records indicate that the registry explained the hearing was not cancelled or postponed and the applicant needed to attend the hearing. The applicant was notified that the Tribunal had instructed that it would allow until 12:00 pm Adelaide time / 9:30 Perth time for him to attend. Records indicate the applicant indicated he would not attend by 12:00 pm Adelaide time. The registry explained that if he was unable to attend that day due to illness he would need to provide to the Tribunal a certificate from a doctor giving details of his illness and the reasons he would be unable to participate in a hearing that day. The registry noted that consistent with prior instructions from the Tribunal a certificate stating he was 'unfit for work' would not be sufficient. The Tribunal instructed that the certificate must indicate the applicant was unable to attend a 2-hour hearing before the Tribunal to give evidence and answer questions. It must state the doctor's opinion why the applicant's illness would prevent him from participating in the hearing, noting the Tribunal may wish to take evidence from the doctor who provides any certificate, that the applicant should make the doctor aware of this and the certificate should indicate the doctor is aware they may need to speak to the Tribunal about the certificate.
4. The applicant was advised that if he did not attend the hearing or provide adequate evidence of his inability to attend and participate in the hearing by 5:00 pm Adelaide time that day, the Tribunal will make a decision on the application without holding any further hearings.
5. This advice was confirmed in writing by email from the Tribunal that day.
6. The applicant did not appear at the hearing and has not provided any evidence related to his inability to attend the hearings on 19 or 22 December 2025. He has not provided any further information or evidence to the Tribunal since that time.

Decision to proceed without a further hearing

1. The applicant did not appear at the adjourned hearing on 22 December 2025. This followed the hearing being rescheduled following his non-attendance on 19 December 2025.
2. Having reviewed the Tribunal file, I am satisfied that the Tribunal gave written notice to the applicant of the hearing as required under s 72(1) of the Administrative Review Tribunal Act 2024 (Cth) and the notice was given in accordance with ss 374(1) and 379A(5) of the Migration Act. The notice of the case event was sent in writing to the last email address provided by the applicant in connection with the application for review. The notice has not been returned to sender. Tribunal records indicate the applicant confirmed he received the notice but would not attend.
3. I am satisfied that the applicant received appropriate notice of the date, time and place of the Tribunal case event.[8]
4. In deciding what action I should take in response to the applicant's failure to appear at the adjourned hearing, I have considered the circumstances of the application. I refer to the account of the proceedings provided above.
5. The applicant rescheduled the hearing to 22 December 2025 when the applicant failed to appear on 19 December 2025. The Tribunal allowed the applicant time to provide medical evidence of the reasons for his non-attendance at the scheduled hearings on 19 December 2025 and 22 December 2025. No evidence was provided and no satisfactory explanation for the non-attendance was given.
6. In the Tribunal's view the applicant has been given a reasonable opportunity to present his case. He gave evidence at the hearing on 26 November 2025 at which the criteria for the visa and matters for determination were discussed with him. He was provided with an additional opportunity to provide evidence addressing the Tribunal's concerns and the criteria of the visa following that hearing. The Tribunal made it clear to the applicant at the hearing that the time of decision criteria must be met and that the absence of any evidence to corroborate his account of the spousal relationship and demonstrate the relationship was genuine and continuing, in particular from the sponsor, may cause the Tribunal not to be satisfied the criteria for the visa were met.
7. The applicant did not comply with any of the orders issued by the Tribunal to provide evidence in support of the application, including where extensions of time were granted.
8. Having regard to the history of the matter and the evidence before the Tribunal, I consider that it appropriate to proceed to make a decision without a further hearing on the application rather than to dismiss the application.[9]
9. Noting applicant has not taken the opportunity to submit further evidence or appear before the Tribunal to provide further evidence addressing concerns put to him at the first hearing about the evidence before the Tribunal in addressing the criteria of the visa, I am satisfied that the applicant has had a number of reasonable opportunities to present his case, adduce evidence and make submissions. I am otherwise satisfied that I can adequately determine, on the basis of the evidence and information before me and in the absence of the parties, whether the applicant meets the criteria for the visa.[10]
10. Accordingly, I have proceeded to make a decision on the application on the information before it.

1. On 10 November 2025 the Tribunal wrote to the applicant to notify him that the Department had provided the Tribunal with a copy of its file to conduct the review of the decision to refuse his partner visas, and that the Department file contained 2 certificates notifying the Tribunal that s 375A of the Migration Act applies to documents or information contained in its file because its disclosure would be contrary to the public interest.
2. The Tribunal's letter noted that both the 375A certificates had been revoked by the Department and were no longer valid, and that he did not need to do anything in relation to the certificates. Copies of the certificates, dated 31 October 2014 and 20 March 2015, were attached to the letter as Attachment A.
3. The Tribunal's letter noted that the Department's file also contains a certificate notifying the Tribunal that s 376(1)(b) of the Migration Act applies to documents or information contained in its file because it was given to the Minister, or to an officer of the Department, in confidence, and s 375A does not apply. The Tribunal's letter stated:

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. > > The information was provided as an allegation in circumstances where the provider of the information has not consented to disclosure to any other person. > > The information, if disclosed, could have potential to identify the source of the information and could lead to injury or damage to members of the community. > > The certificate means 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 certificate 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.

4. A copy of the s 376 certificate, dated 24 August 2018, was included with the letter.
5. The Tribunal's letter noted that the Tribunal had formed the preliminary view that the s 376 certificate was valid as the information covered appears to have been provided in confidence and it does not appear the provider of the information has consented to it being disclosed.
6. The Tribunal's letter noted that records indicated that the gist of some of the material covered by the s 376 certificate was put to the applicant by the AAT at his hearing on 27 September 2018. The AAT's decision summarised the information covered by the certificate as the following, which the Tribunal included in the letter:

The certificate addressed a document recording an allegation received by the Department from an anonymous source who alleged five Indian nationals are assisting clients to find fake marriages or fake employer sponsorships for a fee. In relation to Mr Sangha the allegation is that he came here as a student but had a problem with immigration so "bolted off to Adelaide". It states he paid money to an Australian business for sponsorship and goes on to make various allegations about how this occurred.

The AAT's decision noted that after the hearing you provided a statutory declaration stating you had not paid anyone to be your sponsor, and that your relationship with Ms Smith is genuine and continuing. In her oral evidence Ms Smith also denied being paid to sponsor you.

8. The letter invited the applicant to make submissions on the validity of the s 376 certificate in writing by 24 November 2025. The letter also noted that the Tribunal has discretion to disclose the material covered by the s 376 certificate. The letter 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 the Tribunal find the certificate is valid.
9. The letter noted that if the applicant could not provide written comments by 24 November 2025, the applicant may respond at the hearing scheduled for 26 November 2025.
10. The applicant did not make any written submissions addressing the certificate's validity or the Tribunal's discretion to disclose the material covered by the s 376 certificate by 24 November 2025. At the hearing the applicant indicated he had no submissions to make on the validity of the certificate.
11. As noted above, much of the substance of the certificated information has been disclosed to the applicant in previous Tribunal proceedings.
12. I note that the applicant had provided a response to the information covered by the certificates previously stating he has not paid anyone to be his sponsor and his relationship with Ms Smith is genuine and continuing. In her oral evidence at the second AAT review Ms Smith also denied being paid to sponsor Mr Sangha.
13. Noting as the AAT did that the visa under review is a partner visa and not a business visa, and there is no information that the applicant has applied for a business visa, or evidence other than the 'dob in' relating to these matters I do not consider any weight should be placed on the information covered by the certificate and have not given it any further consideration or weight in the context of this review.

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.
2. Before the delegate and the AAT in it's first and second reviews of the matter was determined on the basis that the applicant noting in particular the lack of any evidence from the sponsor, the central issue for this Tribunal was whether there was a genuine spousal relationship at the time of decision. For the reasons outlined below, the Tribunal's findings have focussed on whether the parties remain in a relationship at the time of the decision in accordance with clause 820.221.

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). In forming an opinion about these matters, regard must be had to all of the circumstances of the relationship. This includes evidence of the financial and social aspects and the nature of the parties' household and their commitment to each other as set out in 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 are 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 11 April 2013, noting that the applicant and sponsor married on 10 April 2013. 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).

1. Given the length of time the matter has been under review it is useful to outline a chronology of key events that form the background to the review:
   • I accept that the applicant met the sponsor at a party on the Gold Coast in October 2011. Ms Smith was 17 at the time. Mr Sangha came to Adelaide and stayed with Ms Smith at her mother's house in February or March of 2012.

• While earlier evidence was that the applicant proposed to the sponsor over the phone in July 2012 and then came to Ms Smith's mother's house at Grange in the same month to exchange rings in the presence of her mother and step-father, the applicant told me at the hearing they did not get engaged. Despite this inconsistency, I accept that in around July 2012 they formed a plan to marry. The applicant spent time with the sponsor in Adelaide in July 2012 before going back to Brisbane to work. In February 2013 the applicant moved from Brisbane to South Australia to live with the applicant at her mother's house. The parties married in April 2013.

• After they married the applicant claimed said they moved from her mother's house to Nailsworth in a property on a short-term lease. They left Nailsworth and entered a one-year lease in Unley from November 2013 until November 2014. During this time Ms Smith was imprisoned for driving offences. The applicant claimed he visited Ms Smith three or four times in prison and sent her money.

• From November 2014 to August 2015 they lived Flinders Park to a property where the lease was held by Mr Sangha's friend Rattan Singh. In August 2015 they moved to Sturt. From 21 July 2017 they were living in Black Forest until August 2018 where they went to live with Mr Sangha's friend Deepak Mehta.

• The applicant claimed they lived with Mr Mehta for around 2 years. After that they moved to Mr Rattan's property in Seacombe Gardens where they lived for around 2 years. He claimed they then moved by to Blackforest to a different unit in the same block. They were there about 1 year and the lease expired in 2023.

• He claimed they then lived in Ascot Park with a friend 'Naval' until January 2025 during which time he travelled back to India to see his family, without Ms Smith. He returned in January 2025 and claims Ms Smith moved in with a friend, Renee (the applicant does not know her last name), because they were having 'bad problems'. He then moved back with his friend Mr Mehta.

• The applicant claims to remain in contact with Ms Smith early week and a half and to have seen her for a coffee about a month prior to the hearing at a shopping centre.

• At some point Ms Smith was [receiving treatment for a medical condition] but the applicant could not recall when this was.
• Other than Mr Sangha's oral testimony to the Tribunal, there is no evidence of their living or other spousal arrangements beyond that point. As noted below, neither Mr Singh nor Mr Mehta gave evidence after 2018.
• Throughout these proceedings the applicant has maintained that he remains in a genuine spousal relationship with the sponsor.

1. As will become evident from my reasons below, I accept that the applicant and the sponsor were known to each other since October 2011 and that they are married. I accept that they had a personal relationship and for periods between April 2013 and August 2018 they shared properties. During this period Ms Smith was also spending time at her parent's house, was in prison for a period and [receiving treatment for a medical condition].
2. The applicant and sponsor do not live together currently.
3. At issue in the review is not whether the sponsor and the applicant are known to each other or whether they had a personal relationship, but whether they are in a relationship which constitutes a spousal relationship as set out in the relevant regulations.

Are the other requirements for a spouse relationship met?

1. In deciding whether the applicants were in a spouse relationship at the time of the application and at the time of decision, the Tribunal must have regard to the factors in reg 1.15A of the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth) (the Regulations).
2. The delegate found that there was insufficient evidence that the parties had were in a genuine and continuing spousal relationship at the time of application. That decision was affirmed by the AAT in 2015 and again in 2019 this included having considered additional evidence submitted by the parties and oral evidence from the applicant and the sponsor.
3. As noted above, the applicant did not provide any updated or additional documentary evidence to the Tribunal on the remitted application. The last evidence filed by the applicant on the application for review was more than 6 years prior to the hearing. While some limited evidence was filed in the second court proceeding that principally related to the review grounds relating to jurisdictional error.
4. Before the Tribunal the applicant was relying entirely on his oral evidence and the material provided previously.
5. Given the lack of any evidence to corroborate the applicant's claim that the relationship was genuine and continuing at the time of the hearing before this Tribunal. The Tribunal has considered all the evidence offered with respect to the status of the relationship at the time of application and while the proceedings before the AAT were on foot.
6. However, this Tribunal has based its findings on the criteria to be applied at the time of the decision as, for the reasons outlined below, findings on those criteria are determinative of the application before the Tribunal. This was made clear to the applicant at the hearing several times as the Tribunal encouraged the applicant to engage with the matters set out in the orders made by the Tribunal and in particular in providing evidence from Ms Smith on the status of the relationship.
7. No further evidence was forthcoming.
8. In the end the applicant was relying entirely on his account of the relationship for the period since any documentary evidence or evidence from Ms smith had been offered, prior to the second AAT decision in 2019. Noting the length of time which had passed, during which time the applicant asserted he was living in a genuine spousal relationship with Ms Smith (including after they were living separately from early 2025) the Tribunal did not consider it could rely on the applicant's unsupported account of the relationship. In the Tribunal's view it was reasonable to expect the applicant would be apple to provide some evidence supporting and corroborating the existence of a genuine spousal relationship during that period. He had provided documents and witnesses statements in the past and while he maintained he had been assisted at that time by a migration agent, the Tribunal considers the sort of information which the directions highlighted might be provided included information within his control. Further, the Tribunal considered no satisfactory explanation was provided for the failure to provide any evidence from Ms Smith or any current evidence from the friends who had attested to the genuineness of the relationship in earlier proceedings.
9. For those reasons, the Tribunal did not find the applicant's evidence that the spousal relationship was genuine and continuing to be credible.
10. In forming an opinion whether the parties' are in a married relationship at the time of the decision consideration must be given to all of the circumstances of the relationship. This includes evidence of the financial and social aspects and the nature of the parties' household and their commitment to each other as set out in r.1.15A which is attached to this decision.
11. In forming an opinion whether the parties are in a de facto relationship at the time of the decision consideration must be given to all of the circumstances of the relationship. This includes evidence of the financial and social aspects and the nature of the parties' household and their commitment to each other as set out in r.1.09A(3) which is attached to this decision.

1. The Tribunal has had regard to the evidence provided relating to the financial aspects of the relationship.
2. Regulation 1.15A(3)(a) provides the factors that must be taken into account when considering 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.

1. Evidence provided to the delegate included a joint Westpac bank statement for the period 4 February 2013 to 31 July 2013. The bank statement showed one $50 deposit on 4 February which was withdrawn that same day. The next transaction was a deposit of $100 on 21 February, which was withdrawn that same day. The account was closed on 31 July 2013.
2. The applicant provided the sponsor's Westpac bank statement for the period 4 February 2013 to 31 July 2013. The bank statement showed one $50 deposit on 4 February which was withdrawn that same day. The account was closed on 31 July 2013.
3. The applicant provided a letter, dated 16 August 2013, verifying his customer details with Westpac. The letter noted he had been a customer since 4 February 2013 and has a Westpac eSaver and Choice Youth account. Handwriting on the letter indicated that both accounts were joint accounts with the sponsor. The account numbers listed on the letter for both accounts match those on the bank statements, and I accept the accounts listed on the letter were joint accounts with the sponsor.
4. The applicant and sponsor both provided letters addressed to them individually, recording their joint Choice Youth account and both listing their address as the Grange property. The applicant also provided a statement of the parties' joint account for the period 31 July 2013 to 30 September 2013. The applicant provided a receipt for the rental of a bed dated October 2013 and listing an address in Nailsworth.
5. The applicant provided a receipt for a phone repair at Apple. The receipt did not note the applicant's address or the sponsor's name but was from the Apple Store in Rundle Place, which I accept is close to the house the parties claimed to be living in at that time.
6. Evidence provided to the AAT during its first review of this matter included an electricity bill addressed to both the visa applicant and sponsor for January to April 2015, and an Alinta Energy bill for the period October 2014 to 26 November 2014. Both bills were addressed to both the applicant and sponsor, and both at the Flinders Park address.
7. The applicant also provided a letter from Centrelink addressed to the sponsor at the Flinders Park address in relation to overpayments. The letter claimed that the correct amount of the applicant's earnings were not taken into account.
8. The applicant also provided joint bank statements for 2014 and 2015.
9. The applicant provided a letter addressed to the applicant from Ambulance Cover, and a bill listing both the applicant and sponsor as members of the Ambulance Cover's family membership.
10. In the second AAT review of the matter the applicant provided a statutory declaration dated 31 August 2018. In this statutory declaration the applicant said that as the sponsor [has been receiving treatment for medical and mental health conditions] he needed to be 'really careful in terms of access to money for her' so she does not 'use money [unwisely] rather only on useful items.' The applicant said that due to the sponsor's anxiety her money from Centrelink is deposited into her account. This statement also said that the applicant and sponsor first experienced financial difficulties in late 2014 due to the money spent on the wedding, immigration fees, migration agent fees, and AAT fees. The applicant said that at the time of writing the statutory declaration, in August 2018, the couple was in debt due to money the applicant needed to pay the ATO and the sponsor's Centrelink debt.
11. The applicant provided his tax returns from the 2013-2014 financial year to his 2018 tax return, which all noted the sponsor as his spouse. The applicant provided additional information including:
    1. undated printout of his superannuation account, showing the sponsor as the sole beneficiary.
    2. a joint bank statement for the period 31 December 2017 to 30 June 2018. The majority of transactions listed were transfers to and from other bank accounts and cardless cash collections.
    3. an undated Centrelink repayment summary informing the sponsor she owed $10,777.72 for her Youth Allowance Student as the correct amount of the applicant's earnings were not taken into account in the payments made to the sponsor.
12. At the second AAT hearing, the applicant indicated his pay went into his account and he transfers money to Ms Smith to prevent her spending money [unwisely]. This was consistent with his evidence to the Tribunal.
13. Before the Tribunal the applicant said they did not have joint assets because she had been studying and they couldn't afford it. He said they had separate and joint accounts. He said the joint account still existed, his wages were paid into it and they were both using it but he thought she might not be using because she might be getting Centrelink payments. The Tribunal asked if she had told Centrelink they were separated and he said they were not fully separated but he didn't know what she had told Centrelink. The Tribunal requested a copy of Ms Smith's current Centrelink statement be provided following the hearing including the basis for her Centrelink benefit. No statement was provided.
14. The applicant told the Tribunal he owed a car which was under his name because her licence got suspended. He said he was saving money in his account when she had [treatment for her condition], but he didn't know what was in her account. He said continued to declare Ms Smith as his spouse for tax purposes, He did not think she was currently paying for rent where she was staying (with a friend) but may be paying for things 'here or there'.
15. No bank statements or other evidence of financial or tax arrangements were provided for the period from 2018 to 2025.
16. While there was some evidence of shared responsibility for rent and some transfers of funds between the parties in the previous proceedings, there is no evidence before the Tribunal of joint ownership of assets and joint liabilities, pooling of financial resources, legal obligations owed by the other party or any sharing of sharing of the day-to-day household expenses. There is no evidence of any financial arrangements indicative of a genuine spousal relationship in the last six years since evidence supporting those aspects of the relationship was offered during the second AAT proceedings in 2018.
17. There is no evidence the parties are currently pooling their financial resources. There is no evidence of joint ownership of real estate or major assets and no evidence of joint liabilities. The financial information is limited and is not sufficient to support a finding that a spousal relationship existed between the parties.
18. The parties have not provided any additional financial information to the Tribunal since the second decision of the AAT. The applicant's evidence is that they have not lived together since January or February 2025 and do not share household arrangements or expenses.
19. In considering the financial aspects of the relationship overall, I consider that while there is historically some evidence of financial arrangements such as shared responsibility for lease agreements, repayment of Centrelink debts and some household expenses which may be indicative of a spousal relationship, there is no evidence to support the existence of such arrangements being in place since 2018.
20. Overall, I consider that the financial aspects of the relationship provide limited support for the existence of a genuine spousal relationship at the time the visa application was made. In any event, there is little current evidence of any financial aspects consistent with an ongoing spousal relationship and Tribunal is not satisfied on the evidence that the parties' financial arrangements reflect the claimed spousal relationship at the time of the decision.

1. Regulation 1.15A(3)(b) provides the factors that must be taken into account when considering 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.

1. There are no children of the relationship and no evidence the parties have joint responsibility for the care and support of any children.
2. Evidence demonstrating the nature of the household which were provided to the delegate included a letter from a real estate agency dated 15 August 2013 verifying that the applicant and sponsor were the current tenants of a home in Nailsworth. Other evidence provided to the delegate for the home in Nailsworth was a notification of rent inspection, dated 20 September 2013. The letter said the rent inspection would be carried out on 4 September 2013, some two weeks before the letter was issued. The applicant also provided an inspection report dated 4 September 2013, Alinta Energy bills dated 11 and 23 September and 16 October 2013, all listing the Nailsworth address. The applicant also provided a receipt for a bed dated 22 October 2013, which listed their address as the Nailsworth home.
3. The Westpac bank statements, discussed above covering the period February to July 2013, displayed the applicant and sponsor's address as the Grange address. The Westpac letter issued to the sponsor, dated 16 August 2013, listed the sponsor's address as Grange. The Form 888 from the sponsor's mother, discussed below, and dated 14 August 2013, listed her own address as the Grange address. She also noted that she saw them a minimum of 3 times per week, despite evidence provided 2 days apart suggesting they lived in the same house.
4. In the sponsor's interview with the Department the sponsor claimed the parties moved out of her mother's house in Grange to the house in Nailsworth in August 2013, and I accept the applicant may have neglected to update his address with Westpac.
5. According to a lease agreement provided to the AAT in its first review, the parties lived at a property in Unley from November 2013 to November 2014. Their names were the only names listed on the lease agreement. The applicant also provided an offer for a lease extension (dated September 2014), two notifications of rent inspections (dated April and October 2014), and a letter confirming the applicant and sponsor had notified the property manager of their intention to vacate (dated October 2014), all in relation to the Unley address.
6. The applicant also provided an undated envelope, addressed to both the applicant and sponsor at the Unley address. Before the AAT in its second review of this matter the applicants provided a letter from D&B Debt Collection Services which was undated but requested payment by 10 April 2014.
7. The applicant and sponsor claimed to live at the Unley address when the Department conducted a site visit in June 2014. During the interview with the sponsor departmental officers noted that the sponsor didn't appear to have many clothes at the shared address. At the hearing before the AAT in the matter's second review, the applicant said the reason that the parties kept their closed in suitcases was because of a mould problem. Following the hearing the AAT noted that in the notes of the site visit there were no records of there being a problem with mould, nor that the applicant showed the officers mould in the property or said that this was the reason they kept clothes in suitcases. In response the applicant provided a statutory declaration addressing the mould problem, a copy of the ledger with an entry of $200 towards the share of the mould cleaning, and the email from the property manager providing the ledger.
8. The Tribunal put those issues to the applicant at the hearing for comment and he maintained that the couple had been living together at the house but that Ms Smith had temporarily relocated due to the mould and because she was already staying some nights at her mother's house which was closer to where she was studying. The Tribunal accepts that the sponsor was spending some time at the Unley address with the applicant and considers it is reasonable that she may have been living predominately elsewhere due to the o=mould. While there were concerns regarding inconsistencies in responses to the questions asked of the applicant and sponsor by the department at that time, the Tribunal did not regard those inconsistences to be sufficient on their evidence that they were living together at least partly at that time.
9. The applicant also provided a lease agreement to the first AAT for a home in Flinders Park for a fixed period between September 2014 and September 2015. The rent for the house was listed as $159, with an additional $126 for 'visitors/extra people saying, water, maintenance, and gardening'. The applicant's friend, Rattan Singh, was also listed as a tenant on this lease.[11] As stated above, to demonstrate the financial aspects of the relationship the applicant provided an electricity bill addressed to both the visa applicant and sponsor for January to April 2015, and an Alinta Energy bill for the period October 2014 to 26 November 2014. Both bills were addressed to both the applicant and sponsor, and both at the Flinders Park address. I have also taken these bills into account when considering the nature of the household and in particular, the living arrangements of the parties. The applicant provided the second AAT with 3 letters addressed to the sponsor at the Flinders Park address in March and April 2015.
10. Before the AAT for its second review of this matter the applicant and sponsor claimed to live with the applicant's friend, Mr Rattan Singh, at Mr Singh's home in Sturt from August 2015 to July 2017. The applicant's bank statement from January to June 2017 lists his address as the Sturt address, and Mr Singh's Form 888 attests to this arrangement. This was also claimed in the applicant's submissions. The Tribunal notes it requested Mr Singh provide a written statement regarding the status of the applicant's relationship, but none was provided. This caused the Tribunal to have concerns about the weight which should be afforded Mr Singh's earlier statement and the applicant's claim that Mr Singh was aware of the status of the relationship, including at the time of the hearing.
11. The applicant and sponsor then lived in a unit in Black Forest from July 2017 to July 2018, where they lived next to Mr Deepak Mehta, who provided a Form 888 and verified this claim. The applicant provided a letter from TPG Internet noting the account was previously under the applicant and sponsor's names for the Black Forest address and listing invoices from 18 September 2017 to 19 August 2018. An AGL gas bill issued 31 July 2018 lists the applicant's address as the Sturt address but says the supply address is the Black Forest address. An AGL electricity bill issued 30 July 2018 lists the applicant's address as the Sturt address but says the supply address is the Black Forest address. The applicant provided an inspection sheet for the Black Forest rental property with what appears to be the signatures of the applicant and sponsor, dated 22 July 2017. The applicant provided copies of rent receipts, which were paid in cash, for the Black Forest unit from July 2017 to July 2018.
12. In August 2018 the applicant and sponsor moved with Mr Mehta and his family to Mr Mehta's home in Ascot Park, also noted in Mr Mehta's Form 888. The applicant claimed to have moved into his home until they could find a new rental property, and were being supported by Mr Mehta and his family 'during the time of hardship'.
13. The applicant told the Tribunal when they first lived together in 2013 she did the laundry and he did he cleaning and she was going to college The Tribunal finds on the evidence that while there is some evidence the parties may have lived at various addresses at the same time between 2015 and /August 2018 the evidence is not sufficient to support a finding of a genuine spousal relationship. The Tribunal notes it requested Mr Mehta provide a written statement regarding the status of the applicant's relationship, but none was provided. This caused the Tribunal to have concerns about the weight which should be afforded Mr Mehta's earlier statement and the applicant's claim that Mr Mehta was aware of the status of the relationship noting the applicant claimed to be living with Mr Mehta at the time of the hearing.
14. There was no evidence to corroborate the applicant's contention he had been living together with the sponsor since that time until January or February 2025 when from which time the applicant said they had been living separately. He said it was hard to rent a unit but he was trying to find one for them to live in together. While he maintained they were not living 'separately and apart' there was no evidence offered to support this contention other than the applicant's oral evidence which, for the reasons outlined earlier the Tribunal does not accept. There is no evidence that the parties currently live together or share any responsibility for housework.
15. The Tribunal finds on the evidence that the parties have not lived together since August 2018 when Mr Mehta's statement was made and the applicant and Ms Smith gave evidence before the AAT. There is no evidence of them having lived together beyond that time other than the applicant's claimed they lived with Mr Mehta for 2 years. As there is no evidence from Mr Mehta to corroborate this or any other evidence to document the applicant and sponsor were living together with Mr Mehta for this period the Tribunal does not accept that they were.
16. The applicant told the Tribunal he and the sponsor have lived separately since January or February 2025. The Tribunal considers the evidence does not establish any shared living arrangement after August 2018 and finds that the applicant and sponsor are living separately and apart and have been since August 2018. They do not have a shared household.
17. The Tribunal is not satisfied on the evidence that the parties' household arrangements are consistent with the claimed spousal relationship at the time of decision.

1. Regulation 1.15A(3)(c) provides the factors that must be taken into account when considering 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.

1. The applicant provided the Department with two Form 888 statutory declarations by a supporting witness in relation to a partner or prospective marriage visa application. One form was completed by Joseph D Zwarycz, the sponsor's stepfather. Mr Zwarycz's statement, dated August 2013, said he first met the applicant early in 2012. Mr Zwarycz said 'As a few months [passed] by and we all got to know him more and more the relationship between [the applicant and sponsor] became closer and closer I found the thought of [the applicant] becoming part of our family was quite endearing, and I have also become closer to [the applicant]'.
2. The second Form 888 was completed by the sponsor's mother, Kylie Ann Smith. Ms Smith said she had known the applicant for almost two years and that, at the time of writing the form, the applicant and sponsor had been married for 4 months. Ms Smith said that since living together for 6 months she saw them a minimum of 3 times weekly. Ms Smith's form was dated 14 August 2013. She listed her address as the address in Grange.
3. Ms Smith also provided another statement, also dated 14 August 2013, attesting to the genuineness of the parties' relationship.
4. The applicant provided separate invoices issued to the applicant and sponsor for a Jetts gym access pass, along with a receipt paid by the applicant to the gym.
5. To the AAT in its first review the applicant provided various photos of the couple, alone and with friends and family, taken since the visa application. They also provided an invitation to a path of Sukhmani Sahib and Kirtan for the applicant's friend's son at a Sikh temple in Brisbane.
6. For the AAT's second review of this matter, the applicant provided a copy of 2 movie tickets for movies seen in March, June and July 2018. The applicant also provided a statutory declaration dated 31 August 2018.
7. The applicant provided a further two Form 888s, one from Rattan Singh and one from Deepak Mehta dated in 2018. The Tribunal directed that updated statements from Mr Metha and Mr Singh be provided and that the witnesses be made available to give evidence. However, no statements were provided and despite the applicant indicating Mr Mehta would give evidence he did not attend any of the scheduled hearings.
8. In the 2018 statement Mr Singh said he knew the applicant through a friend at that they worked together. He said that the sponsor would often visit the applicant on his break. He claimed that after moving from their Unley address, the applicant, sponsor and Mr Singh signed a joint lease together for the home in Flinders Park. Mr Singh said he then got his own house and the applicant and sponsor stayed with him until they found a rental property in Black Forest as Mr Singh had relatives coming from overseas. Mr Singh said that he believed the applicant and sponsor to be in a genuine relationship, and described them as living together happily for many years.
9. In the 2018 statement Mr Mehta said that he first met the applicant at work, and that the sponsor would usually come to see him at work. He said that in 2017 the applicant and sponsor moved into a unit next door to Mr Mehta in Black Forest and they were neighbours for around one year before moving with Mr Mehta and his family to Mr Mehta's home in Ascot Park.
10. As noted earlier, the Tribunal ordered updated statements from Mr Singh and Mr Mehta but none were provided.
11. The applicant provided a statutory declaration, dated August 2018, which is discussed above. The applicant said that due to their debts, and the sponsor's mental health issues, they do not do many social activities.
12. In evidence before the second AAT review, the applicant and sponsor were asked about social aspects of the relationship and Ms Smith she suffered anxiety and depression and isolates herself and had been admitted to the psychiatric hospital four times in 2017. It does not appear any medical evidence was provided. The applicant gave evidence they went to the movies together and they consistently named Tye and Melinda or Belinda as Ms Smith's best friends and Deepak as Mr Sangha's best friend. They provided some photographs of themselves together and with others but Ms Smith stated she does not like being in photographs due to her weight and anxiety. They also testified they had contact with Ms Smith's family and that the applicant's family knew of the marriage.
13. The applicant told the Tribunal that they had travelled to Victor Harbour and other beaches on holidays and that it had been more than a year since they went on holidays together. He said they celebrated Australia Day with BBQs and told the Tribunal they last did this in 2022.
14. The applicant said they spent time together with friends ans indicated he last say Ms Smith's friends 4 or more months prior to the hearing. He said they would also do things with his friends but had not seen them since January 2025. He said they used to watch movies, go to lunch and to the beach and to BBs at her mom's house.
15. There is no evidence that the parties currently undertake joint social activities. Other than the applicant's testimony which was vague and not supported by any corroborating evidence or statements, there is no evidence they have done so since evidence was last provided from Ms Smith and the other witnesses in August 2018. There is no evidence that they are currently viewed by others as being in a spousal relationship.
16. The applicant has not provided any current evidence that he and the sponsor represent themselves socially as being in a spousal relationship.
17. I consider that the evidence as to the social aspects of the relationship is limited and dated and I find that this aspect of the relationship is not consistent with the claimed spousal relationship at the time of decision.

1. Regulation 1.15A(3)(d) provides the factors that must be taken into account when considering the nature of the commitment to each other, including:

(i) the duration of the relationship;

(ii) the length of time they have lived together;

(iii) the degree of companionship and emotional support they draw from each other; and

(iv) Whether they saw the relationship as long term.

1. The applicant and sponsor provided evidence of the nature of their commitment to each other in the application and in the first and second AAT reviews, including giving oral evidence before the AAT.
2. Evidence provided to the delegate which supported this consideration included the receipt for the notice of intended marriage, and the registered and ceremony copies of the marriage certificate. The applicant also provided photos of the parties, including some photos which appeared to be taken at their wedding. The Tribunal accepts the applicant and sponsor married in a ceremony which the applicant told this Tribunal he paid for and organised.
3. The applicant and sponsor provided statements dated 15 August 2013 which described how the parties first met and how their relationship developed. She noted she introduced the applicant to her friends in mid-2012, and a few months later they decided to organise their wedding and get married. The sponsor said the applicant asked her stepfather for permission to marry her. She noted she wanted to save money to buy a home together and then start their own family. The applicant said that after their wedding the parties discussed their future together, including purchasing their own home and considering children.
4. The applicant also provided an undated letter from a doctor advising that they had seen the couple for a family planning issue. The applicant and sponsor both provided separate letters from a different doctor, verifying that he examined both parties during a consultation on 25 October 2013. Later evidence indicated this was a treatment plan for the sponsor to improve her fertility including through treatment for polycystic ovary syndrome and through weight loss supported by the applicant.
5. In submissions provided to the AAT in the matter's first review the parties submitted that the applicant provided strong emotional support and companionship to the sponsor when she was sentenced to prison in late 2014, which she served from September to November 2014. The applicant supported his wife by providing $200 into her prison account so she could purchase food and other items as well as pay for telephone calls, and by visiting her 3 times. The parties provided an envelope which they claimed to have contained correspondence sent by the sponsor to the applicant while she was in prison.[12]
6. In submissions to the AAT in the matter's second review the applicant provided photos and the sponsor's call record, with calls to the applicant's phone highlighted.
7. As noted above, the second AAT decision indicates that the sponsor's mother had told the AAT in a separate application for review that the sponsor was in a relationship with another person, referred to as Mr X. Mr X provided a statutory declaration to the AAT, claiming that he was not in a relationship with the sponsor. In his statement he claimed that he met the sponsor at a music concert in Adelaide a few months before writing the statement and that he had only met her twice, once at lunch which the applicant also attended. Mr X said that he had never met the sponsor's mother and was not sure why she claimed that he was in a relationship with the sponsor. The Tribunal accepts the sponsor and Mr X were friends. While the Second AAT had credibility concerns regarding that relationship, I do not consider there was sufficient evidence before me to find the sponsor was in a relationship with Mr X such as might be relevant to assessing whether the criteria for the grant of the visa are met at the time the Tribunal is making its decision.
8. The applicant provided the AAT with photos including of the applicant and sponsor, alone and with her mother and other friends which demonstrate they spent time together including with family members.
9. The applicant maintained at the hearing that the sponsor had [treatment for a medical condition] and mental health problems historically and that he had supported her though these. He said she had been [receiving treatment for her condition], and he picked her up when she was finished but he couldn't recall when this was. The Tribunal accepts there is evidence the sponsor was in prison at one point I 2014 and accepts she may have had [health] issues at that time. The Tribunal accepts the applicant provided some level of emotional support to her during that period in 2014. There is no evidence to corroborate her current circumstances or any emotional support he is providing to her at this time.
10. The applicant maintained he is in contact with the applicant and said that he wanted to rent a house for them in the new year (2026). He did not provide any evidence to corroborate his claim to be in regular contact with the sponsor and I do not accept that he was.
11. The Tribunal has found some evidence that the applicant and sponsor lived together at least part of the time from when the applicant moved to Adelaide in 2013 until 2018. This included periods living in shared accommodation and periods where Ms Smith was living partly at her mother's house. Noting the lack of evidence to support a claim they have lived together since that time the Tribunal has found the parties have not lived together since August 2018.
12. There is also evidence that they knew each other and that the applicant supported Ms Smith emotionally during a period of imprisonment and [treatment for her medical condition] in 2014. There is also evidence the applicant support Ms Smith in improving personal fitness and dealing with fertility issues. This provides some evidence of a committed relationship at that time.
13. However, other than the applicant's testimony, which the Tribunal does not consider to be credible, there is no evidence the sponsor currently views the relationship as long term. The applicant has not provided any recent documentary evidence of the nature of their commitment to one another. There is no evidence the parties currently provide any companionship or emotional support to one another.
14. According to the applicant's testimony the parties have lived apart since early last year. While he maintains they are still committed to living together in a spousal relationship he was unable to offer any evidence to corroborate that claim.
15. The applicant told the Tribunal that he and the sponsor had been together since 2013 and it had been difficult 'going through ups and downs'. Because of the mental pressure they were taking a break but they will 'get back on track' and when things were sorted they will be together and planned to have kids.
16. While the applicant has indicated a desire to reconcile with the sponsor there is no evidence that she continues to regard them as being in a spousal relationship or to see the relationship as long term. There is no evidence she currently plans to have children with the applicant and the Tribunal does not accept the applicant's evidence in this regard.
17. The Tribunal had concerns with the applicant's evidence regarding the relationship status. He repeatedly claimed that Ms Smith would attest to the fact the relationship was ongoing and testify before the Tribunal. No such evidence was provided despite the Tribunal providing he applicant with multiple opportunities to present such evidence orally or in writing. No other evidence including from friends of the couple was offered to support the contention that the relationship was ongoing.
18. 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.
19. I accept the applicant and the sponsor are married and that they have had a personal relationship of some duration. However, I am not satisfied that the nature of the commitment between is that of persons in a genuine married relationship that see their relationship as a long term one.

1. In making an assessment as to whether a spousal relationship existed between the applicant and the sponsor at the time of application, I have considered all the circumstances of the relationship and each of the factors in r.1.15A
2. For the reasons set out above I consider that the financial and social aspects of the relationship provide only limited support for the existence of a genuine spousal relationship at the time the visa application was made. There is no evidence of those matters for a significant period (more than six years) prior to this Tribunal's consideration of the matter and no evidence of any financial and social aspects of the relationship at the time of decision, other than that offered in oral testimony from the applicant.
3. I have accepted that the applicant and the sponsor are married and well known to each other and that they have had a close personal relationship of some duration. However, I am not satisfied that the relationship between them was that of persons in a genuine married relationship, nor that they saw their relationship as a long term one. There is no evidence of any current commitment by the sponsor to the relationship including from persons who attested to its genuine nature more than 6 years ago.
4. There was no evidence other than the applicant's testimony at the first hearing relating to any of the factors in r.1.15A that could support findings that a spousal relationship exists between the parties at the time of decision.
5. It was clear in evidence that the applicant is desirous of reconciling with his wife and is concerned about not being granted a visa. He stressed several times in evidence that he plans to live with his wife at some point in the future and that the uncertainty of the proceedings has been stressful. The Tribunal believes the applicant's desire for a visa is genuine but his belief that the criteria for the visa will be satisfied at some time in the future does not satisfy the Tribunal that the criteria are met at the time of decision. This is particularly the case given the applicant failed to offer any evidence to substantiate the claimed relationship in the period since late 2018.
6. Having regard to all the circumstances of the relationship including the factors in r.1.15A, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant and the sponsor have a mutual commitment to a shared life as a married couple to the exclusion of all others. The Tribunal is not satisfied their relationship is genuine and continuing. The Tribunal is not satisfied that the parties live together or not separately and apart on a permanent basis.
7. On the basis of the above the Tribunal is not satisfied that the requirements of s 5F(2) are met at the time of this decision.
8. Therefore the applicant does not meet cl 820.221.

1. The applicant maintained throughout the proceedings that while he and the sponsor were not living together they remained in a genuine and continuing spousal relationship. There was no evidence offered from the sponsor to support that claim at the time of decision.
2. Noting the require requirement for the relationship criteria to be satisfied at the time of decision, and the lack of evidence of a current relationship offered by the applicant to the Tribunal, the Tribunal outlined the alternative criteria for the grant of a visa to be met at the time of the decision where there has been a breakdown of the relationship with the sponsoring partner during the hearing. Those criteria are set out in cl.820.221(2) and cl.820.221(3) of the Act. In summary, the criteria may be satisfied where:
   • The relationship ceased to exist because the sponsoring partner dies;
   • The sponsoring partner has committed domestic/family violence against the applicant or a member of the applicant's family unit; or
   • Where both the applicant and the sponsoring partner have an ongoing connection to a child.
3. The Tribunal noted there was nothing in the information the applicant had provided, including his evidence before the Tribunal which suggested any of those criteria applied in his circumstances. The applicant did not contend otherwise at the hearing or in any submissions to the Tribunal. I note this was consistent with his contention that the relationship was continuing.
4. There was no evidence before the Tribunal which would indicate any of the criteria contained in cl.820.221(2) and cl.820.221(3) applies to the applicant.
5. There is no evidence the sponsor is deceased. There are no children of the relationship or with regard to whom both the applicant and the sponsoring partner have an ongoing connection. There have not been any claims or evidence relating to family violence by the sponsoring partner against the applicant or a member of the applicant's family unit. There is no evidence that any such family violence has occurred. The applicant maintained the relationship was genuine and continuing.
6. Accordingly, the Tribunal finds that none of the criteria provided in cl.820.221(2) and cl.820.221(3) apply to the applicant.
7. Therefore the applicant does not meet cl.820.221.
8. For the reasons above, the applicant does not satisfy the criteria for the grant of the visa.

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

Dates of hearing(s): 26 November 2025, 19 December 2025, 22 December 2025

**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] Sangha v Minister for Immigration [2016] FCCA 1277.

[2] Sangha v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2025] FedCFamC2G 164.

[3] Sangha v Minister for Immigration [2016] FCCA 1277.

[4] [2016] FCAFC 183.

[5] Sangha v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2025] FedCFamC2G 164 [52].

[6] Sangha v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2025] FedCFamC2G 164.

[7] set out in cl.820.221(2) and cl.820.221(3) of the Act

[8] Administrative Review Tribunal Act 2024 (Cth) ss 99(b); 106(5)(c),

[9] Administrative Review Tribunal Act 2024 (Cth) ss 99; 106(5),

[10] Administrative Review Tribunal Act 2024 (Cth) 106(5)(d) see 2010120 (Refugee) [2025] ARTA 550 and BYI25 v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2025] FedCFamC2G 1671.

[11] The Form 888 provided by Mr Singh before the second AAT review also claimed that the applicant and sponsor lived with him in at the Flinders Park location.

[12] This was provided again when the case was before the AAT for the second time.