1. On 20 April 2022, the applicant applied to the Tribunal for review of the delegate's decision.
2. On 20 October 2025, the applicant was invited to attend a hearing before the Tribunal on 13 November 2025. The Tribunal also made a direction under s 79 of the Administrative Review Tribunal Act 2024 (the ART Act) to provide evidence of the relationship.
3. In early November 2025, the applicant provided further evidence in support of her application. The documents provided are listed below.
   • A copy of the sponsor's will, which indicated he would leave all his property to the applicant if she survives him and to the applicant's son if she does not.
   • Copies of boarding passes for her and the sponsor indicating travel from Sydney to Hong Kong and later flights to Shenyang, Qingdao and to Sydney together in 2024 and 2025 and flights from Sydney to Hong Kong and then Shenyang to Sydney later in 2025.
   • Forms 888 from Shun Kwan Or, the sponsor's sister dated 3 November 2025, Yue Ling Lam, a friend of the sponsor, dated 26 October 2025, by Yu Rong Cui a friend of the applicant dated 26 October 2025, and by Leon Lai, a friend of the sponsor, dated 4 November 2025.
   • Separate statements by the applicant and sponsor both dated 5 November 2025, which are discussed in further detail below in the section, Are the other requirements for a spouse relationship met?'
   • Bills, including one for car insurance from December 2023, one for electricity from February 2025 and August 2025.
   • An authorisation for the applicant to access the personal account of the sponsor.
   • Bank statements for the sponsor's account from August 2024 to February 2025 and from February 2025 to August 2025.
   • Bank statements for different joint accounts of the applicant and sponsor, one from December 2024 to June 2025 and one from December 2024 to October 2025, another two for a third account covering the period from October 2023 to October 2024.
   • Medical documents relating to the sponsor.
   • A Form 888 from Amy Yee May Ho, a treating doctor.
4. On 12 November 2025, the applicant was notified the hearing would be rescheduled and on 3 December 2025, they were notified the hearing had been rescheduled to 9 January 2026. The applicant and sponsor attended the hearing as did their representative. Ms Guihua Dong and Ms Yurong Cui and Ms Shun Kwan Or, gave evidence as witnesses and the applicant's younger sister, Jinju Sheng attended as a support person. Where relevant the evidence given at the hearing is discussed in further detail in the section, 'Consideration of claims and evidence', below.
5. No further evidence has been received by the Tribunal following the hearing.

1. In a statement provided to the Department with her application, the applicant explained how she met the sponsor and their relationship developed. In summary, her evidence was that she travelled to Australia with her sister in August 2018 as a tourist. While she was in Australia, her sister arranged for her to meet the sponsor, who she met at a mutual friend's house in late August 2018. They enjoyed talking and exchanged contact details. They arranged to meet a few days later and the sponsor showed the applicant the are of Sydney where he lived. As it was cold, he bought the applicant a jacket. They continued to meet and go sightseeing in Sydney over the following weeks. On 23 September, the sponsor bought the applicant a ring and said he had kept the ring for his future wife. He continued to buy her gifts. The applicant returned to China in October 2018. When the applicant returned to China, they contacted each other almost every day. The sponsor travelled to Hong Kong in December 2018 to visit his mother and then flew to meet the applicant, where they met her son and his wife, and the applicant's parents and her brother and his family. The sponsor also accompanied her to her work and helped her make deliveries and met more of the applicant's family during the spring festival in February 2019. The applicant then flew with him to meet his family in Hong Kong. During this time, she was invited to visit the sponsor's father's grave, which was a sign she had been accepted as part of the family. The applicant and sponsor returned to Syndey together in late March 2019 and moved into the sponsor's apartment. They made arrangements to marry and got married on 15 May 2019. The applicant and sponsor's evidence at the hearing was consistent with this account. It became apparent from the sponsor's evidence at the hearing that while he told the applicant he wanted to marry her in 2018, it was not until early 2019 when he had met her family that the applicant agreed to marry him.

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 applicant and sponsor married on 17 May 2019. The applicant has provided a copy of their marriage certificate from NSW Registry of Births Deaths and Marriages indicating their marriage was solemnised under the Marriage Act 1961 (Cth). The applicants have provided evidence that they were not married to anyone else at the time of their marriage. The applicant provided a copy of a certificate of widow status from China dated 1 March 2019 and the applicant provided a Certificate of Divorce from his former wife. The parties are both clearly of marriageable age and there is no indication the marriage was entered into without real consent as defined in s 23B of the Marriage Act 1961 or that the applicant and sponsor are in a prohibited relationship.
2. On the evidence, the parties were married to each other under a marriage that is valid for the purposes of the Act as required by s 5F(2)(a).

Are the other requirements for a spouse relationship met?

1. In addition to meeting the criterion in s 5F(2)(a) of the Act, the applicant must demonstrate she meets the requirements in s 5F(2)(b)-(d) of the Act to meet the definition of spouse in the Act. These include that the applicant and sponsor have a mutual commitment to a shared life as a married couple to the exclusion of all others, the relationship between them is genuine and continuing, and that they live together, or do not live separately and apart on a permanent basis. In determining whether the applicant and sponsor are each other's spouse for the purpose of meeting the criteria in an application for a subclass 820 Partner (Temporary) (Class UK) visa, the Tribunal must consider all of the circumstances of the relationship, and a number of matters set out in subregulation 1.15A(3).
2. The matters set out in subregulation 1.15A(3), include the financial aspects of the relationship (reg. 1.15A(3)(a)), the nature of the household (reg. 1.15A(3)(b)), the social aspects of the relationship (reg. 1.15A(3)(c)), and the nature of the persons' commitment to each other (reg. 1.15A(3)(d)). The applicant's evidence in relation to each of these aspects is considered below.

1. Regulation 1.15A(3)(a) sets out the financial aspects of the relationship that must be considered by the Tribunal to determine whether the applicant and sponsor are in a spousal relationship. These include: any joint ownership of real estate or other major assets; any joint liabilities; the extent of any pooling of financial resources; especially in relation to major financial commitments; whether one person in the relationship owes any legal obligation in respect of the other; and the basis of any sharing of day-to-day household expenses.
2. In a statement provided with her application, the applicant explained she and the sponsor had opened a joint bank account together which they used to pay for grocery shopping. The sponsor was the bigger contributor as he had more savings, and the applicant was unable to work in Australia. In the statement dated 6 July 2021, the applicant explained her husband received a pension and she was now earning money and they put their money together to use when they go shopping or out for meals. The applicant has provided a certificate of title for the apartment she lives in with the applicant which indicate the sponsor is the owner.
3. The applicant has provided numerous bank statements to the Department and Tribunal from joint accounts of the applicant and sponsor. These show little evidence of the applicant depositing money into the sponsor's account. One of the joint accounts also shows large deposits by the sponsor but few that are made by the applicant, though it recorded some substantial cash deposits where the depositor's identity was not indicated.
4. At the hearing, the applicant's evidence was that they share their money and are transparent about how they deposit money into their joint accounts and individual accounts. She explained that the joint account was used for savings and they were looking to accrue interest on these. She explained they used her husband's account to pay for expenses and her husband's pension was deposited into this account. While she could access his account, he could not access hers. Her evidence was that she had not declared her husband on tax returns and she had not made a will, nor was he named as a beneficiary for any insurance policy of hers. She confirmed that she and the sponsor had not made any major purchases and had no major loans together. They were living in her husband's house which no longer had a mortgage. At the hearing, the sponsor's evidence largely corroborated the applicant's evidence. He explained that his account was used to pay for utility bills and household costs, though his wife could access it. He explained that his pension was deposited into the account and his wife also contributed sometimes. He understood that he had reported his relationship with the applicant to the Department of Human Services.
5. The Tribunal finds the applicant and sponsor do not jointly own real estate or other major assets or have any significant joint liabilities. Nonetheless, they have demonstrated a pooling of financial resources in the form of several joint accounts with significant savings balances to which both contribute albeit unequally. The applicant lives in an apartment owned by the sponsor, and there is no evidence before the Tribunal to indicate she is liable for paying rent for doing so, which indicates to the Tribunal sharing of resources. The bank accounts provided by the applicant also show that they share day-to-day household expenses. The Tribunal also notes that the applicant is named as a beneficiary in the sponsor's will and considers this to be a significant legal obligation owed by the sponsor to the applicant.
6. While the applicant and sponsor do not jointly own real estate or other major assets or have any significant joint liabilities, given the sponsor is advance in age and owns an apartment, the Tribunal does not consider this indicates the applicant and sponsor are not in a genuine and continuing relationship. Rather, the Tribunal considers it reflects their relative financial positions. The evidence before the Tribunal indicates that the applicant and sponsor share what financial assets, and whatever other resources, they have in a manner consistent with a genuine and continuing relationship and demonstrating a mutual commitment to a shared life together.
7. The Tribunal finds the financial aspects of the relationship support a finding that the applicant and sponsor are in a married relationship, including that they have a mutual commitment to a shared life as a married couple to the exclusion of all others, the relationship between them is genuine and continuing and they live together. The Tribunal places significant weight on this.

1. Regulation 1.15A(3)(b) sets out aspects of the nature of the household that must be considered by the Tribunal to determine whether the applicant and sponsor are in a spousal relationship. These include: any joint responsibility for the care and support of children; the living arrangements of the persons; and any sharing of the responsibility for housework.
2. In a statement by the applicant submitted with the application, she noted the sponsor has no children and her son is an adult. She also noted they were both able to look after themselves due to their age and experience. She explained they shared household chores, complementing each other e.g. by washing up if the other cooked. They took turns doing laundry and shopped together. In a statement dated 6 July 2021, the applicant also explained that they continued to share household tasks. Her husband would cook more when she was working, though she would cook other times. Whoever did not cook would do the dishes. They did other housework such as laundry and cleaning together. Similar evidence was contained in statements provided to the Tribunal, the applicant and sponsor's evidence was that they continue to live together, share household tasks and also shop together. They noted that the sponsor cooks most of the time while the applicant does the dishes and that the sponsor also drives the applicant to work and picks her up.
3. The applicant's evidence at the hearing was that she lived in an apartment owned by the sponsor and no other people lived in the apartment. Her evidence was consistent with that in her statements that her husband normally cooked and she did the dishes and other household chores, though they shopped together. She explained she was doing more around the house as she was working less, and her husband was getting older. The sponsor's evidence was that he cooked because he was a better cook than her, though he acknowledged she did most of the other housework and they did the shopping together.
4. The applicant's evidence has been consistent throughout the process of their application and has been supported by the sponsor's evidence. This is that the applicant and sponsor share household chores, though the applicant has an increasing role doing so due to the sponsor's advancing age and deteriorating health.
5. The Tribunal finds the applicant and sponsor do not have any joint responsibility for the care and support of children as the applicant's children are now adults and reside in China and the sponsor had no children of his own. The Tribunal finds that the applicant and sponsor have lived together since March 2019 in an apartment owned by the sponsor and continue to do so. The Tribunal also accepts that the applicant and sponsor share responsibility for housework and assist and complement each other's work and needs in a manner commensurate with that of people in a genuine and continuing relationship. In the Tribunal's view, the nature of the household as described in the applicant and sponsor's evidence is in keeping with the degree of interaction to be expected in a spousal relationship given the circumstances where the sponsor is retired, has some health issues and neither has responsibility for the care of children.
6. The Tribunal has considered the nature of the household of the applicant and sponsor and the many years they have lived together supports a finding that the applicant and sponsor are in a married relationship, including that they have a mutual commitment to a shared life as a married couple to the exclusion of all others, the relationship between them is genuine and continuing and they live together. The Tribunal places significant weight on this.

1. Regulation 1.15A(3)(c) sets out the social aspects of the relationship that must be considered by the Tribunal to determine whether the applicant and sponsor are in a spousal relationship. These include whether the persons represent themselves to other people as being married to each other; the opinion of the persons' friends and acquaintances about the nature of the relationship; and any basis on which the persons plan and undertake joint social activities.
2. In a statement provided with the application, the applicant explained that she and the sponsor initially had some difficulty communicating as she speaks Mandarin and he speaks Cantonese, but they had made an effort to learn each other's languages. She explained she still had few friends in Australia, so they mostly socialise with the sponsor's friends. He has introduced her to his activities and to support her until she meets people. She also feels more independent since she now has a driver's license. She provided photographs of meeting each other's family, travelling, and socialising in Australia. In a statement dated 6 July 2021, the applicant explained that she and her husband tried to meet friends on weekends and would go out for meals. She also provided photographs of these social occasions. She explained her husband's friends had become her friends as well. Her evidence was that they go for walks in the park and sometimes by the sea, that they go out for coffee and lunch together and play badminton. In statements provided to the Tribunal, the applicant and sponsor also gave evidence that they travelled to China together in late 2024. On this trip, they visited the applicant's father as he was unwell, they celebrated Chinese New Year and later, when the applicant's father passed away, they stayed so the applicant could make funeral arrangements. They returned in in mid-2025 as the applicant's mother was unwell. While they were there, the sponsor celebrated his birthday with the applicant's family.
3. The applicant's evidence at the hearing was that they occasionally went to play mahjong at clubs in Macquarie and Ashfield and weekly at Cabramatta. They also went to church, normally in Cabramatta. She explained that though she was not Christian, the sponsor was and they did things together. They sometimes went to dinner with her aunt and others, who had some mutual friend with the sponsor. She explained they no longer play badminton. Due to the sponsor's health. They had also visited family in Hong Kong and China together. Her evidence was that her family had a positive impression of the sponsor and saw him as friendly, caring and kind and were supportive of their relationship and her son helped celebrate the sponsor's birthday on their last trip to China.
4. The Tribunal also heard evidence from several witnesses at the hearing. The first witness to give evidence, Guihua Dong, explained how she had known both the applicant who was the elder sister of her daughter-in-law for several years and decided to introduce her to the sponsor, a friend of her friend when the applicant came to Australia in 2018 after her husband passed away. Her evidence was that they had been very close since meeting and the sponsor was very caring towards the applicant. A second witness, Ms Yurong Cai, knew both the applicant and sponsor as employed the applicant and both the applicant and sponsor also regularly shopped at her store and had talked to her. Her evidence was that she had seen them go out together as a couple frequently. The sponsor's older sister, Shun Kwan Or, also gave evidence that she had met the applicant before she married the sponsor. She said she normally saw them during festivals and celebrations though they went to Yum Cha more frequently and saw each other every week or fortnight. They were also in contact through social media. She expressed the view that the relationship was genuine and noted the applicant's care for the sponsor.
5. The Tribunal considers the applicant's evidence, including the evidence of witnesses at the hearing and in writing and the numerous photographs provided of the applicant and sponsor visiting each other's families in China and Hong Kong, respectively, to be persuasive. Based on the evidence before it, the Tribunal finds that the applicant and sponsor represent themselves to other people as being married to each other and it is the opinion of their family members, friends, and acquaintances that they are married, and the nature of their marriage is a genuine one. The Tribunal finds also that the applicant and sponsor have common interests, from walking and exercising together, going out for food and coffee, and visiting and supporting their family members in China and that they undertake joint social activities as a couple with input from each party.
6. The Tribunal has considered the social aspects of the relationship supports a finding that the applicant and sponsor are in a married relationship, including that they have a mutual commitment to a shared life as a married couple to the exclusion of all others, the relationship between them is genuine and continuing and they live together. The Tribunal places significant weight on this.

1. Regulation 1.15A(3)(c) sets out the nature of the persons' commitment to each other that must be considered by the Tribunal to determine whether the applicant and sponsor are in a spousal relationship. These include: the duration of the relationship; the length of time during which the persons have lived together; the degree of companionship and emotional support that the persons draw from each other; and whether the persons see the relationship as a long-term one.
2. In a statement provided with the application, the applicant, indicated she intends to learn English and integrate more into Australian society and have her son and his family visit them. In a statement dated 6 July 2021, the applicant explained that she and her husband support each other emotionally. For example, he had helped her attend medical appointments regarding problems with her eyes and paid for her medical treatment at the time. She also took him to the doctor after he fell sick in February 2021. In the statement she explained that they had discussed buying a place where they could run a shop downstairs and live upstairs but they would reconsider when the Covid-19 pandemic has ended. She also explained that her husband had been helpful looking after her and familiarising her with living in Australia.
3. In statements provided to the Tribunal both the applicant and sponsor spoke of the love and care they had for each other and their commitment to a life together. They spoke of the applicant assisting the sponsor while he had health issues. The Sponsor also gave evidence that the applicant had signed forms for him as next of kin and cared for him during recovery after his discharge from hospital.
4. At the hearing, the applicant's evidence was that they tried to support each other at home with housework. She also gave evidence that she accompanied him to doctor's appointments and she helped him follow the orders of doctors to improve his health, including walking. She explained they sometimes disagreed about how to spend money, but she normally follows his suggestion. They planned to travel together to a number of places in Australia in the future.
5. The Tribunal finds the applicant and sponsor have been in a relationship since September 2018 and have been married since 2019. The Tribunal places weight on the fact that they have married each other. The Tribunal finds that the applicant and sponsor have lived together since March 2019 and continue to do so. The Tribunal also places weight on the fact that they have lived together for several years. The Tribunal also finds the degree of companionship and emotional support that the applicant and sponsor draw from each other is significant and has been demonstrated by the sponsor's efforts to support the applicant and her family and the applicant's support for the sponsor when he has been unwell. The Tribunal also finds that the applicant and sponsor see the relationship as a long-term one.
6. The Tribunal has considered the nature of the applicant and sponsor's commitment to each other supports a finding that the applicant and sponsor are in a married relationship, including that they have a mutual commitment to a shared life as a married couple to the exclusion of all others, the relationship between them is genuine and continuing and they live together. The Tribunal places significant weight on this.

Conclusion on whether the applicant and sponsor are spouses

1. The Tribunal has found the applicant and sponsor are married to each other under a marriage that is valid for the purposes of this Act. The Tribunal has considered whether the applicant and sponsor's relationship meets the other requirements to be considered spouses under s 5F(2) and made findings in accordance with regulation 1.15A(3). In the Tribunal's views, the evidence weighs significantly in favour of a finding that the applicant and sponsor have a mutual commitment to a shared life as a married couple to the exclusion of all others, the relationship between them is genuine and continuing, and they lived together both at the time of application and at the time of this decision. Therefore, the Tribunal considers the remaining requirements in s 5F(2)(b)-(d) are met.
2. On the basis of the above the Tribunal is satisfied that the requirements of s 5F(2) are met at the time the visa application was made and at the time of this decision.

Whether the applicant meets other time of application criteria

1. The time of application criteria in cl 820.211(1) require that the applicant: (a) is not a holder of Subclass 771 (Transit) visa and (b) meets one of the requirements in subclause (2), (5), (6), (7), (8) or (9).
2. The Tribunal has a copy of the applicant's movement records, which show that the applicant held a substantive visa, a subclass 600 visitor visa, at the time of her application for the subclass 820 (Partner) visa. The Tribunal finds that the applicant meets cl 820.211(1)(a) as she was not a holder of Subclass 771 (Transit) visa at the time of application.
3. Clause 820.211(2)(a)(i) requires the applicant is the spouse or de facto partner of a person who is an Australian citizen, an Australian permanent resident, or an eligible New Zealand citizen. For the reasons set out above, the Tribunal is satisfied at the time of application, the applicant was the spouse of the sponsor. Having seen the sponsor's Australian passport, the Tribunal is satisfied that the applicant's spouse, the sponsor, is an Australian citizen and was at the time of application.
4. Other time of application criteria are contained in cl 820.211(2)(c) and cl 820.211(2)(a)(ii). These require that the applicant is sponsored by her spouse who has turned 18, and who is not prohibited by subclause (2B) from being a sponsor. The sponsor was identified as the sponsor in the application and a completed Form 40SP was provided with the application as well as the online sponsorship form. From his passport and other identification provided, it is clear that the sponsor is over 18 years old and was at the time of application. The restriction in cl 820.211(2B) applies only where the spouse is a woman was granted a Subclass 204 (Woman at Risk) visa. In this case, the sponsor is not a woman and there is no indication he has ever been granted a Subclass 204 (Woman at Risk) visa. As such, the Tribunal finds he is not prohibited from sponsoring the applicant by cl 820.211(2B). The Tribunal is satisfied that the sponsorship requirements in cl 820.211(2)(c) and cl 820.211(2)(a)(ii) are met.
5. The applicant held a substantive visa, a subclass 600 visitor visa, at the time of application, so cl 820.211(d) does not apply to her in this case.
6. As the applicant meets cl 820.211(1)(a) and the remaining criteria in 820.211(2), the Tribunal finds that the applicant meets the time of application requirements in cl 820.211(1).

Whether the applicant continues to meet the criteria in cl 820.211(2)

1. As noted earlier in the decision, the Tribunal is satisfied that the applicant continues to be the spouse of the sponsor, an Australian citizen, and the requirements for a spousal relationship in s 5F(2) are met at the time of this decision. The Tribunal finds that the applicant continues to meet the requirements of cl 820.211(2) at the time of decision. As the applicant continues to meet the requirements of subclause 820.211(2), the Tribunal finds the applicant meets the requirements of subclause 820.221(1)(a) and therefore satisfies cl 820.221(1).

1. Given the findings above, the appropriate course is to set aside the decision under review and remit the application for the visa to the Minister to consider the remaining criteria for a Subclass 820 visa.

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

**ATTACHMENT - Extract from Migration Regulations 1994

(1) For subsection 5F (3) of the Act, this regulation sets out arrangements for the purpose of determining whether 1 or more of the conditions in paragraphs 5F (2) (a), (b), (c) and (d) of the Act exist.

(2) If the Minister is considering an application for:

(a) a Partner (Migrant) (Class BC) visa; or

(b) a Partner (Provisional) (Class UF) visa; or

(c) a Partner (Residence) (Class BS) visa; or

(d) a Partner (Temporary) (Class UK) visa;

the Minister must consider all of the circumstances of the relationship, including the matters set out in subregulation (3).

(a) the financial aspects of the relationship, including:

(i) any joint ownership of real estate or other major assets; and

(ii) any joint liabilities; and

(iii) the extent of any pooling of financial resources, especially in relation to major financial commitments; and

(iv) whether one person in the relationship owes any legal obligation in respect of the other; and

(v) the basis of any sharing of day to day household expenses; and

(b) the nature of the household, including:

(i) any joint responsibility for the care and support of children; and

(ii) the living arrangements of the persons; and

(iii) any sharing of the responsibility for housework; and

(c) the social aspects of the relationship, including:

(i) whether the persons represent themselves to other people as being married to each other; and

(ii) the opinion of the persons' friends and acquaintances about the nature of the relationship; and

(iii) any basis on which the persons plan and undertake joint social activities; and

(d) the nature of the persons' commitment to each other, including:

(i) the duration of the relationship; and

(ii) the length of time during which the persons have lived together; and

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

(iv) whether the persons see the relationship as a long term one.

(4) If the Minister is considering an application for a visa of a class other than a class mentioned in subregulation (2), the Minister may consider any of the circumstances mentioned in subregulation (3).