1604047 (Migration)

This matter concerned an application for Partner (Provisional) (Class UF) visas. The primary visa applicant claimed to be the spouse of the review applicant, who was an Australian citizen. The central dispute was whether Mr Milano and Mrs Le were in a genuine spousal relationship at the time of the visa application and at the time of the decision.

The Tribunal was required to determine whether the parties met the criteria for a spousal relationship under clauses 309.211 and 309.221 of the Migration Regulations 1994. This involved assessing whether they were married to each other under a marriage valid for the purposes of the Act, whether there was a mutual commitment to a shared life to the exclusion of others, whether the relationship was genuine and continuing, and whether they lived together or not separately and apart on a permanent basis, as defined by section 5F of the Migration Act 1958. The Tribunal also had to consider all circumstances of the relationship, including financial, social, household, and commitment aspects, as outlined in regulation 1.15A(3).

The Tribunal found that Mr Milano was an Australian citizen and that he and Mrs Le were validly married on 6 July 2014, with no doubts cast on the validity of their marriage. However, the Tribunal concluded that it needed to reconsider the other requirements for a spousal relationship, specifically the financial, social, household, and commitment aspects. Consequently, the Tribunal remitted the applications for Partner (Provisional) (Class UF) visas for reconsideration, directing that the first named visa applicant met the criteria in clauses 309.211 and 309.221.