1826886 (Migration)

This matter concerned an application for a Partner (Migrant) (Class BC) visa, Subclass 100 (Spouse). The applicant claimed that her relationship with the visa sponsor had ceased and that she had been a victim of family violence. The central dispute revolved around whether the applicant met the criteria under cl.100.221(4)(b) and (c) of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994, specifically in relation to the cessation of the relationship and the victimisation of family violence.

The court was required to determine the validity of two non-disclosure certificates issued under sections 376 and 375A of the Migration Act 1958. The court also needed to assess whether the applicant was the spouse of the sponsoring partner prior to the cessation of their relationship and whether she had been a victim of family violence, considering the relevance of an intervention order issued by a court.

The court found that the section 376 non-disclosure certificate was invalid because the delegate had not provided sufficient reasons for non-disclosure on public interest grounds, merely offering a description rather than a substantive reason, and referencing the precedent set in *MZAFZ v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection* [2016] FCA 1081. While the section 375A certificate was considered validly made, the information it sought to protect was deemed irrelevant to the proceedings, particularly in light of a court-issued intervention order which was considered of greater relevance. The court concluded that the applicant met the criteria under cl.100.221(4)(b) and (c) of Schedule 2 to the Regulations.

Consequently, the Tribunal remitted the application for a Partner (Migrant) (Class BC) visa for reconsideration, with the direction that the applicant meets the specified criteria for a Subclass 100 visa.