1515931 (Migration)

This matter concerned an appeal by Ms Lacia against a decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) regarding her subclass 300 visa application. Ms Lacia, a citizen of the Philippines, applied for the visa to marry Mr Gibson, an Australian citizen. The AAT was required to determine several issues, including whether Ms Lacia intended to marry Mr Gibson, whether they had met and were known to each other personally, whether they genuinely intended to marry within the visa period, and whether they intended to live together as spouses. A further issue was whether any impediment to their marriage existed under Australian law at the time of the decision.

The AAT considered whether Ms Lacia and Mr Gibson met the requirements of the Migration Regulations 1994, specifically clauses 300.211, 300.214, 300.216, and 300.221A. The Tribunal was satisfied that Mr Gibson was an Australian citizen and that Ms Lacia intended to marry him. Evidence presented confirmed that they had met personally and were known to each other. Despite Ms Lacia's previous marriage not being annulled until after the visa application was lodged, the Tribunal found that at the time of application, both parties genuinely intended to marry and that the marriage would occur within the visa period. Furthermore, the Tribunal was satisfied that they genuinely intended to live together as spouses.

Crucially, the AAT examined the impediment to marriage issue. It was established that Ms Lacia's previous marriage had been declared null and void by a Philippine court on 5 January 2016, with this declaration registered on 26 April 2016. The Tribunal accepted this annulment as ending Ms Lacia's prior marriage, thereby removing any impediment to her marrying Mr Gibson under Australian law. Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that all relevant requirements for the subclass 300 visa were met.