2001198 (Migration)

This matter concerned an application for a Partner (Temporary) (Class UK) visa, Subclass 820, where the applicant sought review of a previous refusal. The core dispute revolved around the genuineness of the de facto relationship between the applicant and the sponsor, particularly in light of the sponsor's overseas travel late in pregnancy and a subsequent stillbirth. The delegate's decision had raised concerns about the validity of documentation provided to substantiate these events and had also noted the applicant's previous dealings with the Department involving allegations of false and misleading information.

The Tribunal was required to determine whether the applicant was the de facto partner of the sponsor, and to consider issues of credibility and whether the applicant had provided a bogus document. Specifically, the delegate had expressed significant doubts regarding the sponsor's pregnancy and the subsequent stillbirth, noting that travel advice indicated a prohibition on airline travel for expectant mothers at 36 weeks gestation, while the sponsor had travelled at 37 weeks. The delegate also questioned the lack of follow-up information from Australian medical professionals and highlighted the applicant's prior history of providing false and misleading information.

The Tribunal concluded that the matter should be remitted for reconsideration. While acknowledging the sensitivity of the circumstances, the Tribunal noted that the delegate's decision record omitted information available to the delegate, namely that the Department had sought to verify the letter from the Pakistani doctor through Post. The Tribunal found that the applicant met certain criteria for a Subclass 820 visa, including those relating to the de facto relationship as defined by the Migration Regulations 1994, specifically clauses 820.211 and 820.221, and regulation 2.03A. The Tribunal remitted the application for the Minister to consider the remaining criteria for the visa.