1801306 (Migration)

This matter concerned an application for a Partner (Migrant) (Class BC) visa, subclass 100. The applicant claimed that her relationship with the visa sponsor had ceased and that she had been a victim of family violence. The Tribunal was satisfied that the applicant and sponsor had been in a partner relationship which had now ceased, but the central issue was whether the applicant had suffered family violence as defined by the Migration Regulations 1994.

The Tribunal was required to determine whether the applicant had established a claim of family violence under the Regulations, specifically whether the evidence presented met the requirements for a non-judicially determined claim of family violence. This involved assessing whether the applicant had provided sufficient evidence, such as statutory declarations from the applicant and competent persons, to satisfy the criteria outlined in regulations 1.23, 1.24, 1.25, and 1.26. The Tribunal also considered the definition of "relevant family violence" and the requirement that such violence, or part of it, must have occurred during the relationship.

The Tribunal's reasoning focused on the specific evidentiary requirements for establishing a non-judicially determined claim of family violence. It noted that under regulation 1.23(10)(c)(i), if the Minister (or Tribunal on review) is not satisfied that family violence has occurred, an opinion from an independent expert must be sought. The Tribunal concluded that the applicant had not provided sufficient evidence to establish that she had suffered relevant family violence, and therefore, an independent expert opinion was not obtained or, if obtained, did not support her claim. Consequently, the applicant did not meet the criteria for the visa, specifically clause 100.221(4)(b) and (c).

The Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicant the Partner (Migrant) (Class BC) visa, subclass 100, as she did not meet an essential criterion for the visa.