1915629 (Migration)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal considered an application for a Partner (Migrant) (Class BC) visa, Subclass 100, made by an applicant who claimed her relationship with the sponsor had ceased and that she had been a victim of family violence. The Tribunal accepted that the applicant had been in a spousal relationship with the sponsor and that this relationship had ceased, thus satisfying clause 100.221(4)(b) of the Migration Regulations 1994.

The central legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicant had satisfied the requirements of clause 100.221(4)(c)(i) of the Regulations, specifically concerning the claim of family violence. This required determining if the applicant had suffered family violence committed by the sponsor within the meaning of the Regulations, which could be established through judicially determined family violence or a non-judicially determined claim supported by specific evidence.

The Tribunal reasoned that the applicant had not presented evidence of judicially determined family violence, nor had she met the requirements for a non-judicially determined claim under subregulation 1.23(8) as there was no joint undertaking to a court. However, the Tribunal noted that a non-judicially determined claim could also be established under subregulation 1.23(9) by presenting evidence in accordance with regulation 1.24, which includes a statutory declaration and evidence of a type specified by the Minister. As the Tribunal accepted the applicant met clause 100.221(4)(b) and the issue of family violence under clause 100.221(4)(c)(i) required further consideration of the evidence presented, the Tribunal remitted the matter.

The Tribunal ordered that the application for the Partner (Migrant) (Class BC) visa be remitted for reconsideration, with a direction that the applicant meets the criteria under clause 100.221(4)(b) and clause 100.221(4)(c) of Schedule 2 to the Regulations.