Australian Marriage rate on the rise -divorce rate dippimg

[Robert K Chelliah]

More and more Australians are sponsoring their life partners from overseas. A significant number of Subclass 300 and 309 visa applications get refused and they end up in the MRT, mainly due to a narrow interpreation of the relevant legislation and PAM, by overseases based decision makers. For example, preliminary assessment noations in DIAC case files often refers to obeseravtion of " marriage of convenience" and this prejudgment is used as a basis for visa refusal.

Come off it. Every marriage is a marriage of convenience for both parties. Why should this collateral benefit be used to negate the assesment of "genuine intention of spousal" relationship.

Another common basis of visa refusal is " parties have not known each other for long".
This, again, is a flawed ground for visa refusal in a muslticultural society as in Australia.

I will post some of sucessful arguments that I have sucessfully used at the MRT, shortly.


Robert K Chelliah
RMA 9254011

[Sheelagh Blanckenberg]

Thanks for this post Robert.

Cultural differences regarding relationships and marriage are often discounted by DIAC due to a lack of understanding and this often results in negative decisions being made on kosher applications.

Of course, one must also be mindful that there is a huge amount of fraud perpetrated in partner applications so DIAC tend to approach most spouse cases with a cynical/jaundiced view. It is therefore imperative that such applications are put together in a way which quite clearly outlines and explains any particular cultural norms and customs.

Arguments made to the MRT will be received with interest by all I am sure.

[Robert K Chelliah]

Hi Sheelagh, this was one component of my MRT appeal of a Vietnamese sc 3009 appeal, refereing to reference to lack of sensitivity to socio-cultural -class aspects by case officers. I hace cited releavnt MRT case to bach up my argument. I will be happy to provide further advise to others on this and other aspects of 300 and 3009.




12.0. As reflected in the robust questioning of the visa applicant, the delegate failed to appreciate the relevant dynamics, structure and the functioning of the two families. The tendency for the delegates, in general as much as in this instance, to apply too rigidly the Regulations 1.15A and the relevant criteria of Schedule 2, has been observed in the MRT case of DINH, Thi Xuan Thu [2002] MRTA 2107 where the Presiding Member Deborah Morgan observed in para 28
“ Consideration needs to be given to the cultural context and background in which the marriage has taken place. The Tribunal cannot ignore multicultural variations in marriages providing such marriages comply with the Marriage Act. In Lynham v the Director-General of Social Security (1983) 52 ALR 128 at 131 per Fitzgerald J, it was stated that in the task of determining whether a marriage is genuine:
... It is, in my view, important that the departmental officers or Tribunal charged with the task at least take into account what is the norm for the peer group of the applicant. Only in this way can the legislation be fairly and justly accommodated to a multi-racial and otherwise diverse society. “
13.0. We humbly submit that the decision to refuse the visa carries a serious omission and deficiency. To assess the genuine marital relationship between two parties, one would expect that both the parties would have been interviewed, jointly or individually, as a proper course of action to follow, in the making of a serious and important statutory decision of this nature. For some curious reason sponsor was not interviewed in this instance. The dispensing of the need to interview the sponsor compels one to belief that the delegate may not have had an open mind of inquiry, but had made an preemptive decision before the interview of the visa applicant.



Robert K Chelliah
RMS 9254011
tel 61 08 92464088