1820847 (Migration)

This matter concerned an application for a Partner (Migrant) (Class BC) visa, Subclass 100 (Spouse). The applicant, a national of Sri Lanka, sought review of a decision to refuse the visa. The core of the dispute revolved around whether the applicant continued to be the spouse or de facto partner of the sponsoring partner at the time of the decision, as required by the Migration Regulations 1994. The Administrative Appeals Tribunal considered the evidence presented by both parties.

The Tribunal was required to determine whether the applicant and sponsor were in a genuine spouse or de facto relationship at the time of the decision. This involved assessing various aspects of their relationship, including financial elements, the nature of their household, social interactions, and the commitment they shared towards each other, as outlined in subregulation 1.15A(3) of the Migration Regulations. The Tribunal also had to consider the applicant's explanations for not responding to previous information requests from the Department, which had contributed to the initial refusal.

The Tribunal found that the applicant and sponsor had provided coherent and plausible evidence, both documentary and oral, which was consistent with each other. While acknowledging some disruption and tension in the relationship and not being fully persuaded by all of the applicant's explanations for non-compliance with departmental requests, the Tribunal ultimately focused on the nature of the relationship at the time of its own decision. The Tribunal concluded that the applicant met the criteria under cl 100.221(2)(b) of the Migration Regulations.

Consequently, the Tribunal remitted the application for a Partner (Migrant) (Class BC) visa for reconsideration by the Minister, with a direction that the applicant met the specified criteria for a Subclass 100 (Partner) visa. The Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the visa, indicating that further consideration of remaining criteria was necessary.