1503292 (Migration)

This matter concerned an application for review of a decision to refuse a Prospective Marriage (Temporary) (Class TO) visa (Subclass 300). The visa applicant, who stated he was born in 1961 in Cambodia, was engaged to the review applicant, an Australian citizen. The review applicant had previously sponsored the visa applicant for a Subclass 300 visa in 2010, which was refused due to significant inconsistencies in the visa applicant's evidence, including providing incorrect ages for the review applicant's children. The Migration Review Tribunal (MRT) affirmed the decision to refuse the current visa application.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the visa applicant and the review applicant genuinely intended to live together as spouses. This required the Tribunal to assess the credibility of the evidence presented and determine if it sufficiently demonstrated a genuine and continuing relationship, particularly in light of the previous refusal and the limited evidence of joint finances or ongoing cohabitation.

The Tribunal considered the history of the relationship, including the visa applicant's previous visa refusal and the significant discrepancies in information provided at that time. While the review applicant provided a statement detailing the development of their relationship since meeting in 2005, including their engagement in 2010 and subsequent visits to Cambodia, the Tribunal noted limited evidence of joint finances and the ongoing nature of their relationship beyond telephone contact. The Tribunal also considered statutory declarations from the review applicant's mother and another individual, but ultimately found significant inconsistencies in the evidence presented, leading to a conclusion that the genuineness of the intention to live together as spouses was not sufficiently established.

The Tribunal affirmed the decision under review.