2120029 (Migration)

This matter concerned an application for review of a decision not to grant a Partner (Migrant) (Class BC) visa, Subclass 100. The applicant sought to rely on the grounds of family violence to satisfy visa criteria, despite the cessation of their relationship with the sponsor. The Tribunal was required to determine whether the applicant had established that they experienced family violence during the spousal relationship.

The central legal issue was whether the evidence presented by the applicant met the evidentiary requirements for establishing family violence under the Migration Regulations 1994, particularly in the context of a non-judicially determined claim. This involved assessing the probative value of a psychologist's report and an intervention order, and considering whether these satisfied the definition of "relevant family violence" as defined in the Regulations. The Tribunal also had to consider the impact of the applicant providing incorrect information regarding allegations of family violence and the weight to be given to an independent expert opinion.

The Tribunal affirmed the decision under review, finding that the applicant had not established the claim of family violence. The Tribunal noted that the granting of an intervention order did not, in itself, meet the evidentiary requirements for establishing family violence under the Regulations. Furthermore, a psychologist's report was considered insufficient to establish a non-judicially determined claim of family violence, especially when contradicted by an independent expert opinion. The Tribunal found that the applicant had provided incorrect information in relation to allegations of family violence and that an independent expert opinion concluded the applicant had not suffered relevant family violence. Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that the assessment of the applicant's eligibility for the visa was properly and validly made.