1805643 (Migration)

This case concerned an application for a Partner (Temporary) (Class UK) (Subclass 820) visa. The applicant, who was born in Jordan, applied for the visa on the grounds of being in a spousal relationship with an Australian citizen, the sponsor. The sponsor, an Australian citizen, has a son from a previous relationship. The parties met in June 2015, committed to each other in August 2015, and were married in February 2016. The Tribunal was required to determine whether the parties were in a genuine and continuing married relationship, as defined by section 5F of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) and Regulation 1.15A of the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth).

The Tribunal was required to assess whether the parties were validly married and whether they were in a genuine and continuing married relationship, which necessitates a mutual commitment to a shared life to the exclusion of all others, and living together or not living separately and apart on a permanent basis. In making this assessment, the Tribunal had to consider all circumstances of the relationship, including the financial, household, and social aspects, as well as the nature of the parties' commitment to each other, as outlined in Regulation 1.15A(3).

The Tribunal found the oral evidence provided by the applicant and the sponsor to be confused, conflicting, and unconvincing. The Tribunal noted that the parties frequently sought to adjust their answers and evade questions, particularly concerning their finances, personal details, and living arrangements. The Tribunal considered it implausible that the parties could not recall pertinent details such as the source of funds in the applicant's account, the age of the applicant's son when they met, or the number of nights they spent together weekly. The Tribunal was concerned that the answers were deliberately vague, suggesting an attempt to withhold prejudicial information. The lack of knowledge and shifting evidence, particularly from the applicant, were deemed inconsistent with the claimed relationship. While acknowledging the stress of tribunal proceedings, the Tribunal was not satisfied that the explanations provided sufficiently overcame these concerns. The Tribunal concluded that the applicant's preparedness to tailor his evidence undermined his credibility, and the cumulative effect of inconsistencies and evasiveness rendered him not a credible witness.

The Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicant a Partner (Temporary) (Class UK) visa.