How to Get an Oz Visa

[Robert K Chelliah]

Reported in the Malaysian STAR.

Monday October 12, 2009
Get an Aussie hubby for RM25,000



A SINGAPOREAN company is helping single women look for Australian husbands.

The company matches up its clients with Australians.

A fee of S$10,000 (RM24,500) is imposed for each successful match.

The men, aged between 30 and 60, are mostly from Brisbane.

The company has so far paired up 30 couples.

● This report is brought to you by Daily Chilli


Who will pick up the tail end of the ill matched breakdowns?/

Robert K Chelliah

[Migration Help]

Reported in the Malaysian STAR.

Monday October 12, 2009
Get an Aussie hubby for RM25,000



A SINGAPOREAN company is helping single women look for Australian husbands.

The company matches up its clients with Australians.

A fee of S$10,000 (RM24,500) is imposed for each successful match.

The men, aged between 30 and 60, are mostly from Brisbane.

The company has so far paired up 30 couples.

● This report is brought to you by Daily Chilli


Who will pick up the tail end of the ill matched breakdowns?/

Robert K Chelliah

My what a business Robert. I guess it is not illegal and so long as the relationship is kosher and meets our immigration requirements there will be no problems with obtaining partner visas? Or is there a catch here somewhere?

[Robert K Chelliah]

The business does not appear to be in violation of the Migration laws. It is like a recruitment company. "I need a spouse - you recruit for me - I will pay for it" a simple commercial transaction. It is indeed a marriage of convenience for both parties. But than, are not ALL marriages marriages of convenience for the bride and the bridgroom? Should this convenience distract the decsion maker from evaluating the "genuine" commitment from thereon of each of the parties.?

But if we look at reg 1.15A calls for assessment of "genuine" commitment to spousal relationship (SC 309).

I cite part of an appeal I sucessfully submitted to MRT last year:

In the FCA in the case of The Minister of State for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs and: Gamdur Singh Dhillon and Marcelle Suzanne Maree Lievense Dhillon No.WAG 26 of 1989 FED No.200 Adminsitrative Law –Presiding Judges Northrop, Wilcox and French it was observed that the visa applicant “ subjected to a statutory decision is entitled to have the case determined by reference to found facts, not suspicion or conflict of evidence.” It was further observed

“ It is perfectly possible for parties, or one of them, to enter into a marriage without a genuine intention of living together as man and wife indefinitely and yet, a few months later, for each of them to have that intention. Although the factors noted by Mr Jolly were such as reasonably to excite some suspicion about the nature of the relationship, they could not determine the critical question."

15.0. The consideration of the often repeated suspicion of “contrived marriages” or “marriage of convenience” arranged for the purpose of enabling a party to obtain a visa to migrate to Australia, as it was in this case, was put to rest in para 11 of the above “Dhillon” case in observing that :

“people enter marriages with a variety of purposes and motives, hopes and anticipations, so that it is not possible to classify some purposes etc. as according to what may be described as 'community expectations'. It is not necessarily inconsistent with a genuine marriage relationship that it was entered into by one or both parties with a view to material benefit or advancement, as for example with the hope of becoming eligible to reside in a particular country. The true test, we would suggest the only test, is whether at the time at which the matter has to be decided it can be said that the parties have a mutual commitment to a shared life as husband and wife to the exclusion of others. Mr Jolly never addressed that question. Accordingly, it seems to us that he failed to take into account a relevant consideration."

Nonetheless, in reality it is the hope of most parents from third world countries with poor circumstances, such as Vietnam or Punjab, for their eligible daughters to marry an eligible bachelor of same cultural background from a developed country, such as Australia or the United States and emigrate as his genuine spouse. This desire and aspiration does not distract the parties from establishing an ongoing genuine commitment to each other as spouses.

Incidently, the case officer cited in this FCA , David Jolly is now on this side of the fence, as a highly respected senior Migration Agent.



Robert K Chelliah
rkc@austmigration.com.sg

[Sheelagh Blanckenberg]

Hi Robert

I would hazard a guess this will always be a vexed issue if the case officer and/or MRT member is not aware of the cultural aspects in these marriage matters. It is all too easy to interpret a marriage or spousal relationship in the limited context in which one is brought up or educated. So well done on winning the appeal! It has I am sure brought fresh hope to those who have been fighting an uphill battle with our immigration policies!

Cheers

Sheelagh