1833015 (Migration)

This matter concerned an appeal by an applicant for a Partner (Provisional) (Class UF) visa, Subclass 309, against a decision made by the delegate. The central dispute revolved around whether the applicant and her sponsor were in a genuine and continuing married relationship, both at the time of the visa application and at the time of the decision. The applicant provided extensive documentation, including personal statements, statutory declarations from friends and family, financial records, marriage and divorce certificates, online correspondence, and photographs, to substantiate their relationship. Updated financial information and further photographs were submitted prior to the hearing, along with explanations for delays in providing requested information. A psychological assessment of the sponsor, highlighting the adverse mental health impacts of the prolonged visa process, led to the matter being constituted urgently.

The court was required to determine whether the applicant and her sponsor had a genuine and continuing spousal relationship, as defined by the relevant legislative provisions. This involved assessing whether their commitment to each other was indicative of a married relationship, to the exclusion of all others, and whether this relationship had been maintained since its inception. Additionally, the court needed to consider the sponsorship requirements, including whether the sponsor met the eligibility criteria and had provided the necessary undertakings, and whether any criminal convictions of the sponsor would impact the approval of the sponsorship.

The Deputy President found, based on the comprehensive evidence presented by the applicant and sponsor, including statements from their social circle and documentary proof of their shared life, that they had a long-term and genuine commitment to each other, consistent with a married relationship. The court was satisfied that their relationship was genuine and continuing, commencing from when they moved in together in June 2013 and formalised by their marriage in June 2015, and that they had lived together throughout this period. The court also confirmed that the sponsor met the eligibility criteria and had fulfilled the sponsorship obligations. Consequently, the court was satisfied that the requirements of section 5F(2) of the Act and relevant clauses of Schedule 2 of the Regulations were met. The decision under review was remitted with a direction that the visa be granted.