1806812 (Migration)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal considered an application for a Partner (Migrant) (Class BC) visa made by the applicant, who had previously been granted a Partner (Provisional) (Class UF) Subclass 309 visa. The applicant's sponsorship for the visa had been withdrawn, and the applicant had raised claims of family violence. The Tribunal was required to determine whether the applicant met the criteria for the visa, particularly in light of the withdrawn sponsorship and the family violence claims.

The central legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the applicant had made a "non-judicially determined claim of family violence" as defined by the Migration Regulations 1994, and if so, whether the applicant had provided the necessary evidence, specifically a statutory declaration, to substantiate such a claim. The Tribunal also considered information suggesting the applicant's relationship with the sponsor was not genuine, including allegations of threats, blackmail, and the applicant having a child with another person.

The Tribunal reasoned that for a non-judicially determined claim of family violence to be considered under regulation 1.23(9), the applicant must seek to satisfy a prescribed criterion for family violence and present evidence in accordance with regulation 1.24. This evidence must demonstrate that the alleged victim has suffered relevant family violence and that the alleged perpetrator committed it. The Tribunal found that the applicant had not provided a statutory declaration as required by regulation 1.25, nor had a non-judicially determined claim of family violence been made in accordance with regulation 1.23(9). Consequently, the applicant did not meet the essential criteria for the visa, specifically cl.100.221(4)(b) and (c).

The Tribunal affirmed the decision under review, concluding that the applicant did not meet the requirements for the grant of the Partner (Migrant) (Class BC) visa.