1514535 (Migration)

This matter concerned an application for a Partner (Migrant) (Class BC) visa, specifically a Subclass 100 visa. The applicant claimed to be the spouse of the sponsoring partner, an Australian citizen. The central dispute before the Tribunal was whether the parties continued to be in an ongoing and genuine spousal relationship as required by the Migration Regulations 1994.

The Tribunal was required to determine whether the applicant met the criteria for a spousal relationship under clause 100.221 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations. This involved assessing whether the parties were in a married relationship that was valid for the purposes of the Act, and whether there was a mutual commitment to a shared life to the exclusion of others, that the relationship was genuine and continuing, and that they lived together or did not live separately and apart on a permanent basis, as defined by section 5F of the Migration Act 1958. The Tribunal also had to consider all the circumstances of the relationship, including financial, social, household, and commitment aspects, as outlined in regulation 1.15A(3).

The Tribunal found that the parties were validly married in Nepal on 16 October 2012, satisfying the requirement of being married to each other under a marriage valid for the purposes of the Act. The Tribunal also considered evidence relating to the financial aspects of the relationship, noting the existence of a joint bank account opened in March 2014 and a joint security bond lodged for their premises in March 2016. Similarly, evidence regarding the nature of the parties' household, including living arrangements and sharing of housework, was considered.

Given the findings, the Tribunal concluded that the appropriate course was to remit the application for the visa to the Minister for reconsideration. The Tribunal directed that the applicant met the criteria under clause 100.221 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations, and the Minister was to consider the remaining criteria for the Subclass 100 visa.