1728977 (Migration)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) considered an application for a Partner (Residence) (Class BS) visa made by the applicant. The applicant sought to meet criterion cl.801.221(6) of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations. The dispute centred on whether the applicant's relationship with her sponsor, Mr. C, was a genuine spousal relationship, particularly in light of her having a child with another individual, Mr. B, and providing what the Tribunal found to be mistruths about the child's parentage.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicant satisfied the requirements for a Partner (Residence) visa, specifically concerning the nature of her relationship with her sponsor. This involved assessing the financial, household, social, and commitment aspects of the relationship as outlined in subregulation 1.15A(3) of the Migration Regulations 1994. The Tribunal also had to consider the impact of the applicant's admitted sexual relationship with Mr. B, the father of her child, and the evidence suggesting a lack of genuine spousal connection with Mr. C.

The Tribunal reasoned that the applicant's account of her relationship with Mr. C was not credible. Despite her statutory declaration asserting the genuineness of their marriage until separation, the Tribunal noted inconsistencies and the applicant's admission of a single sexual encounter with Mr. B, which resulted in the birth of her child, [Child A]. The Tribunal found that the applicant had made mistruths to the Department regarding the parentage of [Child A]. Furthermore, the circumstances surrounding Mr. B's possession of the applicant's bank and Medicare cards, and his living arrangements within the applicant's shared accommodation, cast significant doubt on the claimed spousal nature of the relationship with Mr. C. The Tribunal concluded that the social relationship between the applicant and Mr. C was not a spousal one, and that the applicant had failed to demonstrate she met the criteria for the visa.

Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicant a Partner (Residence) (Class BS) visa.