1621044 (Migration)

This matter concerned a review of a decision by the Department of Home Affairs regarding a Partner (Provisional) (Class UF) visa, subclass 309. The review applicant, Ms C, sought to have the Department's decision affirmed, while the visa applicant, Mr A, was the subject of the original visa application. The core of the dispute revolved around whether Mr A and Ms C had provided sufficient evidence to satisfy the criteria for a genuine and continuing married relationship, as defined by the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) and associated regulations.

The court was required to determine whether the relationship between Mr A and Ms C was genuine and continuing, and whether they had lived together as a couple to the exclusion of all others. Specifically, the court had to assess the credibility and reliability of the evidence presented by both applicants, particularly in light of Mr A's previous onshore partner visa application sponsored by his first wife, which had been refused and subsequently reviewed. The court also considered allegations of bias and inconsistencies in the provided evidence.

The court found that the evidence presented was not credible or reliable. It noted that Mr A had applied for a partner visa sponsored by his first wife, and then later applied for the offshore partner visa sponsored by Ms C. Despite Mr A's claim that his relationship with his first wife ended in February 2014, evidence suggested he continued to provide care, financial support, and present himself as her husband to authorities into 2015. Furthermore, Mr A's previous partner visa review application remained active for 12 months after the relationship with his first wife had ceased. The court concluded that the parties had not provided sufficient evidence to satisfy the requirements of a genuine and continuing married relationship, and that Mr A was willing to manipulate visa applications for a migratory outcome.

The court affirmed the decision under review.