1834673 (Migration)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal reviewed a decision concerning a Partner (Provisional) (Class UF) visa (Subclass 309). The applicant sought to establish that they were the spouse of the visa applicant within the meaning of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth). The Tribunal considered evidence relating to the parties' marriage in Nepal, their communication and financial interactions while living in different countries, and their travel history. The Tribunal also noted concerns raised by the applicants regarding the language used during an interview with the Department and the delegate's decision to refuse the application without providing an opportunity for further information.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicants had demonstrated a genuine and continuing relationship, encompassing the financial, household, social, and commitment aspects, as required for the visa subclass. This involved assessing the weight to be given to various pieces of evidence, including marriage certificates, travel records, and statements made during departmental interviews, particularly in light of the applicants' limited fluency in Hindi. The Tribunal was required to determine if the evidence, when considered holistically, established that the applicants were in a committed, long-term relationship.

The Tribunal found that while the applicants were validly married and had engaged in regular communication and financial transfers, the limited household, financial, and social aspects of their relationship, compounded by the challenges of living in different countries and border closures, required further consideration. The Tribunal also acknowledged the applicants' submissions regarding the interview process and the potential for miscommunication. Applying the principles outlined in Regulation 1.15 of the *Migration Regulations 1994*, which mandates consideration of financial, household, social, and commitment aspects of a relationship, the Tribunal concluded that the evidence presented was largely consistent and persuasive, but that the matter should be remitted for reconsideration.

Consequently, the Tribunal remitted the applications for Partner (Provisional) (Class UF) visas for reconsideration by the Minister, with a direction that the first named visa applicant met the criteria for a Subclass 309 visa concerning being a member of the family unit and the genuine and continuing nature of the relationship.