MIGRATION - Partner (Temporary) (Class UK) visa - Subclass 820 (Partner) visa - cancellation of sponsor's permanent residence - Australian-citizen child - sponsor provided false and misleading information - bogus documentation regarding a de facto relationship - failure to declare passive income from interstate investment property - does not meet requirements - decision under review affirmed

Administrative Review Tribunal (Consequential and Transitional Provisions No.1) Act 2024 (Cth)

Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss 57, 65, 106, 109, 351, 359A, 501J

Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth), r 1.03; Schedule 2, cls 820.211, 820.221

1. This is an application for review of a decision made by a delegate of the Minister to refuse to grant the applicant a Partner (Temporary) (Class UK) visa under s 65 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (the Act).
2. The applicant, Chinese national Mrs Shihan Zhang, applied for the visa on 15 February 2018 on the basis of her spousal relationship with her sponsor Mr Jingtao He. At that time, Class UK contained only one subclass: Subclass 820 (Partner). Criteria for the grant of this visa are set out in Part 820 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth) (the Regulations). The primary criteria must be satisfied by at least one applicant. Other members of the family unit, if any, who are applicants for the visa need satisfy only the secondary criteria.
3. The delegate refused to grant the visa on the basis that Mrs Zhang did not satisfy cl 820.221(1) of Schedule 2 to the Regulations because, at the time of the delegate's decision on 24 March 2022, Mr He's Subclass 190 Skilled-Nominated permanent residence visa had been cancelled on 16 November 2021 under s 109 of the Act and, as a consequence, he was no longer a permanent resident of Australia. On 16 November 2021, Mrs Zhang was provided with procedural fairness and requested, pursuant to s 57 of the Act, to respond to information from the Department that Mr He is no longer a permanent resident of Australia and, therefore, she is no longer the spouse of an Australian citizen, permanent resident or eligible New Zealand citizen. As set out in the delegate's decision, a copy of which accompanied the review application, Mrs Zhang did not respond to the invitation to comment on this issue.
4. Following refusal of her Subclass 820 Partner visa application on 24 March 2022 for no longer being sponsored by an Australian citizen, permanent resident or an eligible New Zealand citizen, Mrs Zhang sought review of the delegate's refusal of her visa application with the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (the AAT).
5. On 14 October 2024, the AAT became the Administrative Review Tribunal (the Tribunal). Under the transitional provisions in the Administrative Review Tribunal (Consequential and Transitional Provisions No.1) Act 2024, proceedings in the AAT that were not finalised before 14 October 2024 are to be continued and finalised by the Tribunal. Anything done in relation to the proceeding before 14 October 2024 is taken to have been done by the Tribunal.
6. After constitution of the matter to the Member, on 18 September 2025 the Tribunal sent Mrs Zhang via her then representative (registered migration agent Minjia Rao) an invitation pursuant to s 359A of the Act to comment on the fact that her husband and sponsor Mr He is no longer an Australian permanent resident and, as such, she cannot meet the requirement in cl 820.221(1) of Schedule 2 to the Regulations that she continues to be sponsored by an Australian citizen, permanent resident or eligible New Zealand citizen as at the time of the Tribunal's decision.
7. In response to the Tribunal's s 359A letter, in addition to notice from the representative that she no longer acts for Mrs Zhang, the Tribunal received a number of documents including:
   1. a detailed Statutory Declaration from Mrs Zhang sworn 30 September 2025 responding to the issue outlined in the Tribunal's s 359A letter setting out the implications for her and her family of the Tribunal affirming the delegate's decision;
   2. the NSW Birth Certificate of Linyi He, the son of Mrs Zhang and Mr He (hereinafter referred to as the couple) born at Westmead Hospital in October 2021;
   3. the Australian citizenship certificate of Linyi He and the bio data page of the Australian passport;
   4. evidence of the purchase by Mr He of a house in Duxton Court, Rouse Hill in NSW (the Rouse Hill Property) in April 2018 for just over $1.2 million together with an Invoice dated 2 September 2025 from rental agent Meridien Realty confirming receipt of $3,584 for rent of the Rouse Hill Property for the month of September 2025 (that is, annualised to $43,008).

Information on the NSW Government's Land Titles confirms that, as at the time of this decision, Mr He continues to be the sole registered proprietor of the Rouse Hill Property and that it is mortgaged to Perpetual Trustee Company Limited;

1. evidence of the purchase of a house in Sefton Avenue, Viveash in Western Australia by then 2½ year-old Linyi He on 19 April 2024 (the Sefton Avenue Property) and Rate Notices addressed to Linyi He from the City of Swan since his purchase of the Sefton Avenue Property. Linyi He is the sole registered proprietor of the Sefton Avenue Property.

Publicly available information on the Western Australian Government's Landgate website confirms that minors can become a registered proprietor of land in Western Australia consistent with s 59 of the transfer of Land Act 1893 (WA).[1] Documentation is required to be signed by the minor's parent or guardian on their behalf;

1. Mrs Zhang's Tax Return for the year ended 30 June 2024 prepared by her Accountant in Willetton, WA;
2. multiple photographs of the couple and their son Linyi He, who is now 4 years old, at various sites in Sydney and, since 31 December 2002, in Perth; and,
3. receipts for payment of Linyi He's attendance at Cuddles Early Learning and Childcare Centre in Swanville as well as a signed letter dated 1 March 2024 confirming Linyi He's enrolment in Pre-Kindergarten at Wesley College in South Perth commencing in 2025. In addition, the couple provided numerous photographs of Linyi He together with his friends at both Cuddles Early Learning and Childcare Centre and at Wesley College.
4. Also provided was a Notice of Filing confirming that Mr He has a pending application (SYG1188/2022) for judicial review in the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (FCFCOA) of the AAT's decision dated 1 July 2022 affirming cancellation of his Subclass 190 Skilled-Nominated visa.
5. Following receipt of Mrs Zhang's response to the adverse information put to her in its s 359A letter, the Tribunal invited Mrs Zhang and Mr He to attend a hearing on 7 November 2025. Due to the Member's unexpected unavailability on that date, the hearing was postponed to 14 November 2025.

1. Mrs Zhang appeared before the Tribunal on 14 November 2025 to give evidence and present arguments. Given Mrs Zhang's current location in Perth, the hearing was conducted by way of MS Teams videoconference from the Tribunal's office in Perth. The hearing was conducted with the assistance of an interpreter in the Mandarin and English languages. Evidence provided at the hearing, as well as discussion in relation to the potential referral of this matter to the Minister pursuant to s 351 of the Act as requested by Mrs Zhang, is discussed below.

1. Mrs Zhang is a 33-year-old Chinese national who arrived in Australia on 28 October 2015 as the holder of a Subclass 573 Student visa. She applied for a Subclass 820 Partner visa on 15 February 2018 on the basis of her spousal relationship with Mr He. Lodged with the Department was with a copy of the couple's NSW Marriage Certificate confirming they were married on 19 January 2018 in Eastwood.
2. Mr He is also a national of China, born in June 1987. As set out in the delegate's decision refusing Mrs Zhang's Subclass 820 visa application, a copy of which was provided to the AAT, Mr He was granted a Subclass 190 Skilled-Nominated visa on 18 January 2017. He had successfully applied for that visa as a secondary applicant based on his claimed de facto relationship with Ms Yishi Liu. However, Mr He's Subclass 190 visa was cancelled under s 109 of the Act on 16 November 2021 on the basis of having provided false and misleading information to the Department regarding his claimed de facto relationship with Ms Liu. The bogus documents included multiple bank statements, a car insurance certificate and multiple Vodafone bills which had been altered to support claims that Mr He was living with his claimed de facto partner Ms Liu at the same address in Haymarket.
3. Following cancellation of his Subclass 190 Skilled-Nominated visa, Mr He sought review in the AAT of the delegate's decision. The (differently constituted) AAT affirmed the decision to cancel Mr He's Subclass 190 visa on 1 July 2022: He (Migration) [2022] AATA 2584 (the AAT Decision). Mrs Zhang confirmed at the hearing held on 14 November 2025 that, as set out in the AAT's Decision, she attended the AAT's hearing on 28 June 2022 to give evidence in support of her husband's AAT review application. She also confirmed that, subsequently, her husband sought judicial review in the FCFCOA of the AAT's Decision. Review of the FCFCOA's website confirms that the matter is now set down for Directions on 2 April 2026 and a Hearing on 20 April 2026.
4. For the following reasons, the Tribunal has concluded that the decision under review must be affirmed. It also comments on Mrs Zhang's request that her matter be referred to the Minister pursuant to s 351 of the Act. Relevant provisions of the Act and Regulations referred to in this decision are set out in the Attachment to the decision.

1. The issue in the present case is whether, as at the time of this decision, Mrs Zhang continues to be sponsored by a person who is an eligible sponsor.

Is the applicant sponsored by an eligible sponsor?

1. Clause 820.211 requires that, at the time of application, a Subclass 820 visa applicant meets one of several alternative sub-criteria. These include cl 820.211(2) of Schedule 2 to the Regulations which requires that the applicant is, at the time of application, sponsored by their spouse or de facto partner who is an Australian citizen, permanent resident or eligible New Zealand citizen (as that term is defined in reg 1.03 of the Regulations) where such person has turned 18, or where they have not, by their sponsor's parent or guardian who has turned 18.
2. Relevant to the circumstances of this case, Mr He was an Australian permanent resident at the time Mrs Zhang lodged her Subclass 820 visa application on the basis that he held a Subclass 190 Skilled-Nominated visa. As set out in the delegate's decision and confirmed by Mrs Zhang at the hearing, her husband's Subclass 190 visa was granted on the basis that he was a secondary applicant included in his (then) claimed de facto partner Ms Liu's permanent residence application. However, subsequent to Mrs Zhang lodging her Partner visa application on 15 February 2018 following the couple's marriage on 19 January 2018, Mr He's permanent residence visa was cancelled pursuant to s 109 of the Act on the basis that he had provided false or misleading information regarding his claimed de facto relationship with Ms Liu.
3. At the time of decision, the applicant must continue to be sponsored by their sponsor, and the sponsorship must have been approved by the Minister and still be in force. Exceptions apply in certain circumstances where the sponsor has died, or family violence has occurred, or a child is involved. Approval of a sponsorship is subject to limitations contained in reg 1.20J of the Regulations which sets a limit on the number of people that a person can sponsor in their lifetime and a minimum time that must lapse between each sponsorship, and in reg 1.20KA which sets a limit on the period before which certain Parent visa holders can sponsor another person for a Partner visa. There are further limits imposed by reg 1.20KB in relation to sponsors charged with, or convicted of, certain offences where the visa application was made on or after 27 March 2010, and reg 1.20KC for sponsors convicted of a relevant offence who have a significant criminal record in relation to the relevant offence where the visa application was made on or after 18 November 2016.
4. During the hearing, the Tribunal acknowledged its review of documentation lodged with the Department confirms that Mrs Zhang's (then) Australian permanent resident husband Mr He lodged a sponsorship application on 19 February 2018 in support of her Subclass 820 Partner visa application. However, as noted above at para [13], on 1 July 2022 the AAT affirmed the delegate's decision to cancel Mr He's Subclass 190 Skilled-Nominated permanent residence visa: He (Migration) [2022] AATA 2584.
5. The Tribunal also acknowledged that, as set out in her Statutory Declaration in response to its s 359A letter, Mrs Zhang advised the Tribunal that her husband has sought judicial review of the AAT's Decision. She explained that her husband has since sought judicial review of the AAT Decision with the benefit of advice from an immigration lawyer because the misinformation provided to the Department was all due to his (then) agent's fault. The Tribunal observed that, as set out in the AAT Decision, Mrs Zhang attended that AAT hearing and given evidence at that hearing.[2] It noted her comments about the basis of the current judicial review proceedings in the FCFCOA are clearly inconsistent with evidence from her husband given at the AAT hearing and set out in the AAT Decision. Based on her husband's oral evidence to the AAT during the course of that hearing and as set out in the AAT Decision, Mr He acknowledged he never had a de facto relationship with Ms Liu and that they had never lived together at the Haymarket address.[3] Further, Mr He also conceded that he had provided bogus documentation in support of his Subclass 190 visa application.[4] Mrs Zhang responded that she could not now recall any of that evidence. She added that, although the couple did receive a copy of the AAT's Decision, she has not read it due to being too busy with her young son and work commitments.
6. Questioned as to why her husband was not attending the Tribunal's hearing today, Mrs Zhang stated that he does not work because his current Bridging E visa has condition 8101 No Work attached which precludes him from undertaking any work . However, he was attending a Parents' Day at their son's childcare centre.
7. The Tribunal confirmed that it had no discretion to waive the legislative requirement that Mrs Zhang is, as at the time of this decision, sponsored by an Australian citizen, permanent resident or eligible New Zealand citizen. Mrs Zhang acknowledged the Tribunal's comments. She said her former representative had informed her of this and this is why she formally requests the Tribunal to consider referral of her matter to the Minister. Information put forward by Mrs Zhang in this regard is set out below.
8. On the evidence before it, the Tribunal is satisfied that the sponsor for Mrs Zhang's Subclass 820 Partner visa application is no longer the holder of an Australian permanent residence visa. He is also not an Australian citizen or eligible New Zealand citizen. Accordingly, the Tribunal finds that Mrs Zhang does not meet the requirements in cl 820.221(1) of Schedule 2 to the Regulations.
9. For the reasons outlined above, Mrs Zhang does not satisfy the criteria for the grant of the visa and the Tribunal must affirm the delegate's decision not to grant the applicant a Partner (Temporary) (Class UK) visa.

Is this an appropriate matter to refer to the Minister?

1. The Tribunal has considered Mrs Zhang's request during the hearing that the Tribunal refer this matter to the Minister pursuant to s 351 of the Act.
2. On 17 September 2025, the Minister reissued Guidelines explaining the objective factors considered for exercising the public interest powers under s 351 (and s 501J) of the Act (the Guidelines).[5] The objective criteria now set out in cl 13 of the Guidelines are prescriptive and replace the former subjective criteria.
3. Relevantly, the Minister may substitute, for a decision of the Tribunal, a decision which is more favourable to an applicant if the Minister thinks it is in the public interest to do so consistent with s 351 of the Act. This power can only be exercised by the Minister personally. The Tribunal has no statutory obligation to consider whether a matter should be referred to the Minister for consideration of use of the powers under s 351 of the Act: indeed, there is no statutory power to do so. However, cl 1.3 and cl 7 of the Guidelines confirm that the Tribunal may make a request to the Minister to exercise their intervention powers. The Minister's powers under s 351 are non-compellable, in the sense that the Minister has no duty to consider whether to exercise the relevant power, regardless of whether being requested to do so by the applicant, their representative, or the Tribunal.
4. During the hearing, the Tribunal acknowledged the criterion set out in cl 13.1.1 of the Guidelines is that the individual has provided evidence s/he is the parent of an Australian citizen child who is a minor at the time of the request. The Tribunal acknowledged Linyi He is a minor as at this time. It noted it may have proactively engaged with referral of this matter to the Minister but for Mr He's failure to attend the hearing and thereby enable it to take evidence from him to address some of its concerns. As set out above at para [20], the AAT Decision confirms Mr He admitted he had provided false and misleading information as well as bogus documentation to the Department in connection with his Subclass 190 Skilled visa application.
5. The Tribunal also noted that it was evident Mr He had provided the same false information in his sponsorship application lodged in support of his wife Mrs Zhang's Subclass 820 visa application. At page 7 of his sponsorship application in respect of Mrs Zhang, Mr He states he had been in a previous de facto relationship with Ms Liu in the period 1 August 2014 to 20 March 2017. No information had been provided to the Department or the Tribunal to correct this error despite it being the subject of comments in the AAT Decision.[6] Mrs Zhang reiterated that her husband could not attend the hearing to give evidence as he was at a Parents' Day function at their son's childcare centre. She apologised for his non-appearance and reiterated that she had not read the AAT Decision.
6. The Tribunal observed it had no evidence of Mr He's remorse about his providing false information and bogus documentation to the Australian Government as part of his Subclass 190 visa application, or his efforts to correct the misinformation in his sponsorship application lodged in support of Mrs Zhang's Subclass 820 Partner visa application. Rather, it only had the claims made by Mrs Zhang in her Statutory Declaration lodged in response to the Tribunal's s 359A letter. The Tribunal invited submission after the hearing of a statement from Mr He. No documentation was provided. This weighs in favour of not referring this matter to the Minister.
7. Mrs Zhang sets out in considerable detail in her Statutory Declaration sworn 30 September 2025 provided prior to the hearing information in relation to her son Linyi He's development to date and the adverse impact on her son regarding his lost opportunity to be educated in Australia if he is forced to return to China to live with his parents. The Tribunal accepts these claims.
8. The Tribunal also noted during the hearing that Mrs Zhang's Statutory Declaration sets out details of her Master of Professional Accounting and Business qualification as well as her current employment as a full-time Accountant with the Australian Institute of Languages and Further Education (AILFEA): however, no evidence had been provided to confirm these claims. It acknowledged the criterion set out in cl 13.1.2 of the Guidelines state that a separate criterion for referring a matter to the Minister is that the individual has the skills required for about relevant skilled occupation set out in the Medium and Long-term Strategic Skills List, the Short-term Skilled Occupation List, the Regional Occupation List or the Core Skills Occupation List. The Tribunal acknowledged that the occupation of Accountant ANZSCO 221111 appears on all 4 of these lists.[7] Mrs Zhang told the Tribunal that she started working full-time as an Accountant with AILFEA on 22 July 2024.
9. The Tribunal invited Mrs Zhang to provide a copy of her Accounting qualifications as well as her most recent payslips from AILFEA. After the hearing, she submitted a copy of her Master of Professional Accounting and Business award issued by CRICOS provider Top Education on 21 August 2019, her Academic Transcript for her Master degree and her payslips for the period 19 June 2025 to 19 November 2025 as well as the results of her Pearson PTE Academic Score Report dated 10 February 2023. However, no evidence was provided of Mrs Zhang's membership of a professional association such as CPA Australia, CA ANZ or IPA.
10. During the hearing, the Tribunal acknowledged receipt of Mrs Zhang's Tax Return for the year ended 30 June 2024 in which she confirms her spouse's name is Jingtao He. It also observed that, although her husband is precluded from working in Australia by virtue of condition 8101 No Work attached to his current Bridging E visa, it had been provided with the Tax Invoice referred to above at para [7(4)] from Meridien Realty dated 2 September 2025 in relation to the Rouse Hill Property confirming it was rented for $3,584 for the month of September 2025. Whilst noting that the receipt relates to rent received in September 2025 and, based on evidence provided that the couple moved to Western Australia in December 2022, it appeared to the Tribunal that Mrs Zhang should have reported that her husband had received passive income in the order of $40,000 for the year ended 30 June 2024 less any relevant expenses such as interest paid to his mortgagee Perpetual Trustee Company Limited, local Council rates, water charges, any capital allowances, insurance, property agent fees/commission etc.
11. Invited for her comments as a qualified Accountant, Mrs Zhang acknowledged the Tribunal's observation and stated that she took advice from her own Accountant in Willetton, WA who helped her prepare and lodge her 2024 Tax Return. She told the Tribunal that she would promptly follow up further with him, and lodge any necessary amendment to her Tax Return for the year ended 30 June 2024 and provide evidence of this to the Tribunal. No such evidence was provided after the hearing. In the circumstances, the Department may wish to refer the Tribunal's concerns in this regard to the Australian Taxation Office (ATO) consistent with its Memorandum of Understanding with the ATO.

1. Whilst acknowledging Mrs Zhang has provided evidence of her son's Australian citizenship as well as evidence of her qualifications and recent experience as an Accountant, having regard to the couple's failure to proactively engage with the Tribunal's invitation to provide further documentation to enable robust consideration of Mrs Zhang's request to refer this matter to the Minister, the Tribunal has declined her request.
2. However, it notes she may nonetheless personally request the Minister's intervention in her case. In addition to providing evidence to in support of her request for Ministerial intervention, Mrs Zhang may wish to refer to the Minister the favourable comments by the (differently constituted) AAT in the AAT Decision, in particular, comments at paras [74] - [77] of that decision.

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

Representative for the Applicant: Not applicable

ATTACHMENT - Extracts from Migration Act 1958 and Migration Regulations 1994

Migration Act 1958

(1) For the purposes of this Act, a person is the spouse of another person (whether of the same sex or a different sex) if, under subsection (2), the 2 persons are in a married relationship.

(2) For the purposes of subsection (1), persons are in a married relationship if:

(a) they are married to each other under a marriage that is valid for the purposes of this Act; and

(b) they have a mutual commitment to a shared life as a married couple to the exclusion of all others; and

(c) the relationship between them is genuine and continuing; and

(ii) do not live separately and apart on a permanent basis.

(3) The regulations may make provision in relation to the determination of whether one or more of the conditions in paragraphs (2)(a), (b), (c) and (d) exist. The regulations may make different provision in relation to the determination for different purposes whether one or more of those conditions exist.

Note: Section 12 also affects the determination of whether the condition in paragraph (2)(a) of this section exists.

109 Cancellation of visa if information incorrect

(a) deciding under section 108 that there was non-compliance by the holder of a visa; and

(b) considering any response to the notice about the non-compliance given in a way required by paragraph 107(1)(b); and

(c) having regard to any prescribed circumstances;

(2) If the Minister may cancel a visa under subsection (1), the Minister must do so if there exist circumstances declared by the regulations to be circumstances in which a visa must be cancelled.

(3) If the Minister cancels a visa under subsection (1), the Minister must give the former holder of the visa a written notice that:

(d) if the former holder has a right to have the decision reviewed by application under Part 5 states:

(ii) the time in which the application for review may be made; and

(4) The notice under subsection (3) must be given in the prescribed way.

(5) Failure to give notice of a decision does not affect the validity of the decision.

(6) Section 267 (decision-maker must have regard to rules when giving notice of decision) of the ART Act does not apply in relation to notifications given under subsection (3) of this section.

(7) Section 268 (requesting reasons for a reviewable decision from decision-maker) of the ART Act does not apply in relation to decisions to cancel a visa under this section.

Migration Regulations 1994

820.21 - Criteria to be satisfied at time of application

(a) is not the holder of a Subclass 771 (Transit) visa; and

(b) meets the requirements of subclause (2), (5), (6), (7), (8) or (9).

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

(a) the applicant is the spouse or de facto partner of a person who:

(i) is an Australian citizen, an Australian permanent resident or an eligible New Zealand citizen; and

(ii) is not prohibited by subclause (2B) from being a sponsoring partner; and

(i) if the applicant's spouse or de facto partner has turned 18 - by the spouse or de facto partner; or

(ii) if the applicant's spouse has not turned 18 - by a parent or guardian of the spouse who:

(B) is an Australian citizen, an Australian permanent resident or an eligible New Zealand citizen; and

(d) in the case of an applicant who is not the holder of a substantive visa - either:

(A) entered Australia as the holder of a Subclass 995 (Diplomatic) visa or as a special purpose visa holder who at the time of entry met the requirements of subclause (2A); and

(ii) the applicant satisfies Schedule 3 criteria 3001, 3003 and 3004, unless the Minister is satisfied that there are compelling reasons for not applying those criteria.

820.22 - Criteria to be satisfied at time of decision

820.221 (1) In the case of an applicant referred to in subclause 820.211(2), (5), (6), (7), (8) or (9), the applicant either:

(a) continues to meet the requirements of the applicable subclause; or

(b) meets the requirements of subclause (2) or (3).

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

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

(b) satisfies the Minister that the applicant would have continued to be the spouse or de facto partner of the sponsoring partner if the sponsoring partner had not died; and

(c) has developed close business, cultural or personal ties in Australia.

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

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

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

(B) a dependent child of the sponsoring partner or of the applicant or of both of them;

has suffered family violence committed by the sponsoring partner;

(A) has custody or joint custody of, or access to; or

(B) has a residence order or contact order made under the Family Law Act 1975 relating to; at least 1 child in respect of whom the sponsoring partner:

(C) has been granted joint custody or access by a court; or

(D) has a residence order or contact order made under the Family Law Act 1975 ; or

(E) has an obligation under a child maintenance order made under the Family Law Act 1975 , or any other formal maintenance obligation.

Note: For special provisions relating to family violence, see Division 1.5.

(4) If paragraph 820.211(2)(c), (5)(f) or (6)(c) requires the applicant to be sponsored:

(a) the sponsorship has been approved by the Minister and is still in force; and

(b) the sponsor has consented to the disclosure by the Department, to each applicant included in the sponsorship, of any conviction of the sponsor for a relevant offence (within the meaning of subregulation 1.20KC(2)).

Note 1: Regulations 1.20J, 1.20KA, 1.20KB and 1.20KC limit the Minister's discretion to approve sponsorships.

Note 2: The sponsor may be asked to consent to the disclosure mentioned in paragraph (b) on the approved form required to be completed by the sponsor in relation to the visa application.

(5) For the purposes of subclause (4), the conviction of the sponsor for a relevant offence is to be disregarded if:

(a) the conviction has been quashed or otherwise nullified; or

(i) the sponsor has been pardoned in relation to the conviction; and

(ii) the effect of that pardon is that the sponsor is taken never to have been convicted of the offence.

[1] CAP-01 Capacity of Parties | Landgate

[2] He (Migration) [2022] AATA 2584 at [3]

[5] Ministerial Instructions under sections 351 and 501J of the Migration Act 1958

[6] He (Migration) [2022] AATA 2584 at [70]

[7] Relevantly, LIN 19/051, LIN 24/089, IMMI 18/043 and LIN 24/093