1921392 (Migration)

This matter concerned an application for a Partner (Temporary) (Class UK) visa, subclass 820. The applicant sought to establish that she was the spouse of the sponsor, an Australian permanent resident, at the time of the visa application and at the time of the decision. The parties had a history of marriage, divorce, and remarriage, with two adult children from their first marriage. The delegate had refused the visa application, and the applicant sought review of that decision.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicant and the sponsor were in a genuine and continuing married relationship, as defined by section 5F of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) and Regulation 1.15A of the Migration Regulations 1994. This required the Tribunal to consider all circumstances of the relationship, including financial aspects, the nature of the household, social aspects, and the nature of the commitment to each other. The Tribunal also had to determine if the parties were validly married under Australian law.

The Tribunal found that while the parties were validly married in January 2017, the evidence did not sufficiently demonstrate a genuine and continuing spouse relationship as required by the Act and Regulations. Specifically, there was little evidence presented regarding the integration of their finances, the nature of their household beyond living under the same roof as the sponsor's son and daughter-in-law, and limited social evidence from outside their immediate families. Furthermore, the Tribunal noted a lack of detailed evidence concerning the development of their relationship and their mutual commitment to a shared life as a married couple to the exclusion of all others.

Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicant a Partner (Temporary) (Class UK) visa, finding that the applicant did not meet the requirements of clause 820.211(2)(a) or clause 820.221 of the Migration Regulations.