2003568 (Migration)

This matter concerned an appeal by an applicant for a Partner (Temporary) (Class UK) visa against the decision of the Department to refuse the visa. The applicant sought to establish that they were in a genuine and continuing relationship with the sponsor, an Australian citizen, as required by the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth) and associated regulations. The core of the dispute revolved around whether the relationship met the legislative criteria for a spouse or de facto partner.

The legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the applicant met the definition of spouse or de facto partner under sections 5F and 5CB of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth). This required the Tribunal to consider all the circumstances of the relationship, including financial aspects, the nature of the household, social aspects, and the nature of the commitment to each other, as outlined in regulation 1.15A of the *Migration Regulations 1994* (Cth). The Tribunal also had to assess unfavourable information provided by the Department, which included allegations of a contrived relationship and discrepancies in the sponsor's residential address and declarations to Centrelink regarding her relationship status.

The Tribunal affirmed the decision to refuse the visa. It found that the evidence did not establish a genuine and continuing relationship. Specifically, the Tribunal noted that the sponsor had not declared her relationship with the applicant to Centrelink and had instead indicated to Centrelink that she was in a relationship with another person, receiving benefits on that basis. Furthermore, the sponsor had listed a different residential address to that claimed by the applicant, and there was a lack of evidence regarding the pooling of financial resources and recent supporting statements for the relationship. These factors, taken together, led the Tribunal to conclude that the applicant did not satisfy the criteria for the grant of the visa.