1922592 (Migration)

This matter concerned an application for review of a decision to refuse a Prospective Marriage (Temporary) (Class TO) visa, subclass 300. The applicant, Ms B, an Australian citizen, sought to sponsor her fiancé, Mr A, for this visa. The core dispute revolved around whether the parties had met in person and known each other personally, as required by clause 300.214 of the Migration Regulations 1994. The Administrative Appeals Tribunal was tasked with determining if the evidence presented satisfied this criterion.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicants had met the requirements of clause 300.214, specifically that the parties had met in person since each turned 18 and were known to each other personally. This clause, particularly for applications made on or after 1 July 2013, was introduced to prevent forced marriages and human trafficking, requiring a physical meeting as an indicator of a genuine intention to marry. The Tribunal had to consider the meaning of "met in person" and "known to each other personally" in light of relevant case law and departmental guidelines.

The Tribunal's reasoning focused on significant inconsistencies in the applicant's account of how and when she met Mr A. Initially, Ms B stated she met Mr A in [Country 3] after travelling there for a holiday, crossing into the Congo with minimal travel time and no passport requirement. Later, she provided a different account, stating she met him in [City 1] at a specific venue, requiring a five-hour drive to the Congo, and then returning to [City 1] the next day due to a missing bag. These accounts were inconsistent with her passport stamps and previous statements made to the Department, including WhatsApp messages and a statutory declaration. The Tribunal found these discrepancies undermined the credibility of the applicants' claims and concluded that the requirement to have met in person had not been satisfied.

Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the decision under review, finding that the applicants had failed to satisfy the criteria for the Prospective Marriage visa.