Abate (Migration)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal considered an application for a Partner (Provisional) (Class UF) visa, subclass 309. The visa applicant sought to establish that they were the spouse of the review applicant, an Australian citizen. The core of the dispute revolved around whether the parties met the legislative requirements for a spousal relationship under section 5F of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth).

The Tribunal was required to determine if the parties were in a married relationship as defined by section 5F(2) of the Act. This involved assessing whether they were validly married, whether there was a mutual commitment to a shared life as a married couple to the exclusion of all others, whether the relationship was genuine and continuing, and whether they lived together or not separately and apart on a permanent basis. In making this assessment, the Tribunal had to consider all circumstances of the relationship, including financial, household, and social aspects, as well as the parties' commitment to each other, as outlined in regulation 1.15A(3) of the Migration Regulations 1994.

The Tribunal found that the parties were validly married on 19 October 2013, satisfying section 5F(2)(a). However, regarding the other requirements, the Tribunal noted limited evidence of financial pooling, joint ownership, or liabilities. While the review applicant had taken custody of her nieces following the death of their parents, this did not constitute joint responsibility for children in the context of the spousal relationship. Furthermore, evidence regarding the social aspects of the relationship, such as how they presented themselves to others or undertook joint social activities, was described as limited and inconsistent. The Tribunal also found limited evidence of future plans and a lack of significant shared commitment, particularly given the limited time the parties had lived together and the review applicant's extended stays in Ethiopia without the visa applicant.

Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that the visa applicant did not satisfy the criteria for the grant of the visa. The Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the Partner (Provisional) (Class UF) visa.