1729987 (Migration)

This matter concerned an application for review of a decision to refuse a Partner (Temporary) (Class UK) visa. The applicant, who was born in China and had limited English proficiency, had applied for the visa in association with her sponsor, who was an Australian citizen. The relationship between the parties commenced in November 2013, with a civil marriage ceremony in March 2014. The visa application was refused by the delegate on 13 June 2014. The applicant subsequently applied for review with the Migration Review Tribunal (MRT).

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicant and sponsor were in a genuine and continuing spousal relationship at the time of the decision. This required the Tribunal to consider all the circumstances of the relationship, including financial aspects, the nature of the household, social aspects, and the nature of their commitment to each other, as outlined in subregulation 1.15A(3) of the Migration Regulations 1994. A secondary issue arose when the sponsor withdrew his sponsorship and indicated the applicant was claiming family violence, leading the Tribunal to consider whether the applicant had established a claim of family violence within a genuine relationship.

The Tribunal affirmed the delegate's decision, finding that the applicant had not established a genuine and continuing spousal relationship. While the Tribunal accepted that a claim of relevant family violence had been properly made, evidenced by a protection order against the sponsor, it did not find that the applicant was in a genuine relationship with the sponsor at the time she claimed to have suffered the family violence. The Tribunal noted the lack of joint assets or liabilities, the limited pooling of financial resources, and the reliance on inexpensive items as evidence of joint ownership. Furthermore, the Tribunal found that the applicant's daughters played a central role in the relationship's formation and that the duration of the parties' relationship was not sufficiently long to establish a genuine commitment. The Tribunal concluded that the applicant did not satisfy the criteria for the grant of the visa.