Visa Type
AAT
309/100
Decision Date
06 Jun 2023
Case Summary
Background:
Our firm took over this client’s case in 2018 when she was already in the AAT appeals stage due to the rejection of her partner visa (820).
Initially, when applying for a tourist visa to enter Australia, she had engaged a domestic agent in China. Unbeknownst to her, the agent, to ensure the approval of the tourist visa, fabricated a false marriage and child. It was only when she met her first husband in Australia and submitted the first partner visa application that she discovered the truth. Due to inconsistencies between the documents submitted for the tourist visa and the partner visa, her application was rejected by the immigration department. Subsequently, she divorced her first husband.
Chronology:
Later, the applicant met her second husband. Their bond was deep, evident even through photographs. Having faced a prior rejection of a partner visa application, she decided to apply offshore this time. However, due to her complex visa history, her visa was once again denied. Eventually, she chose to appeal to AAT.
Turning point:
In 2018, our firm took over her case during the AAT appeal. We reexamined the materials from her initial tourist visa and partner visa applications and organized her relationship history. Initially, we secured an opportunity for reconsideration in the AAT appeal. Then, we continued to assist her in supplementing materials until June 6, 2023, when she finally obtained the Permanent Resident Visa (Subclass 100). The journey from taking over the case to her successful acquisition of the Permanent Resident Visa took five years, a collaboration that closely involved our firm and the client, ultimately realizing her immigration goals. It was a challenging but celebratory journey.
Summary:
This case serves as a typical example of visa rejection due to the errors of others. While this partner visa case was not a sham marriage (fake marriage), it exhibited characteristics similar to a sham marriage, leading immigration officials to scrutinize it more closely. This case reminds us to exercise caution in choosing representation, avoiding heavy consequences due to inaccurate information.
