1717900 (Migration)

This matter concerned an application for a Partner (Provisional) (Class UF) visa, Subclass 309. The review applicant, an Australian permanent resident, was the sponsor for the visa applicant. The core dispute revolved around whether the parties were in a married relationship as defined by section 5F of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) at the time of the visa application and at the time of the decision. The Tribunal was required to determine if the parties met the criteria for a spouse relationship, which necessitates a valid marriage, a mutual commitment to a shared life to the exclusion of others, a genuine and continuing relationship, and living together or not living separately and apart on a permanent basis.

The Tribunal considered the evidence presented regarding the financial aspects of the relationship. It accepted that the parties had co-invested in a vehicle, with the review applicant providing funds for its purchase by the visa applicant for business purposes. Further, the Tribunal accepted that the parties had likely co-invested in a share of a shop, with the review applicant transferring funds to the visa applicant for this purpose. Despite these findings of co-investment, the Tribunal concluded that the matter should be remitted for reconsideration, indicating that not all criteria for the visa had been definitively met.

The Tribunal remitted the application for a Partner (Provisional) (Class UF) visa for reconsideration. It directed that the visa applicant met the criteria under cl.309.211 and cl.309.221 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994. This suggests that while some aspects of the spouse relationship were established, further consideration was required by the Minister regarding the remaining criteria for the visa.