1608039 (Migration)

This matter concerned an appeal by visa applicants, identified as [Ms A] and her children, against the Tribunal's decision to affirm the refusal of their Partner (Provisional) (Class UF) visa, subclass 309. The central dispute revolved around whether [Ms A] was the de facto partner of the Australian resident sponsor, [Mr B], at the time of the application. The Tribunal was required to determine if the evidence presented satisfied the criteria for a de facto relationship under the Migration Regulations 1994, specifically considering the financial, household, social, and commitment aspects of the relationship, as well as the duration requirement.

The Tribunal's reasoning focused on inconsistencies and a lack of sufficient evidence to establish a genuine and ongoing de facto relationship. While the parties claimed to have committed to a shared life in October 2014, their evidence regarding the commencement of this commitment varied, and their stated intention to marry in April 2016 was not fulfilled. Furthermore, the Tribunal noted conflicting explanations for the postponed marriage, with one explanation citing cultural prohibitions and another suggesting the wedding was contingent on visa approval, undermining the credibility of their claims. The Tribunal also found limited evidence of the social aspects of the relationship and the duration of their cohabitation, leading to the conclusion that the additional criteria for a de facto relationship were not met.

Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the Partner (Provisional) visas to [Ms A] and her children, as the secondary applicants could not satisfy the criteria for a subclass 309 visa without the primary applicant meeting the requirements for a de facto relationship.