Adefila (Migration)

The applicant, Ms. Adefila, sought judicial review of a decision by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) affirming the refusal of her Partner (Temporary) (Class UK) visa (subclass 820). The AAT had found that Ms. Adefila's relationship with the sponsor was not genuine and subsisting, and that she had not satisfied the criteria for the visa.

The primary legal issue before the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia was whether the AAT had erred in law in its assessment of the genuineness and subsistence of the relationship between Ms. Adefila and the sponsor. Specifically, the court considered whether the AAT had adequately considered all relevant evidence, including allegations of family violence, protection orders, the parties' divorce from previous partners, the existence of a new relationship with an Australian citizen child, the absence of shared major assets, and limited involvement with the sponsor’s children from a previous relationship. The court also examined whether the AAT’s conclusion that the relationship was contrived was reasonably open to it on the evidence.

Justice Meredith Jackson found that the AAT had failed to properly consider and weigh all the evidence before it, particularly in relation to the family violence allegations and the impact of these on the genuineness of the relationship. The AAT’s reasoning was found to be deficient in its analysis of the documentary evidence and the applicant's oral evidence. The court held that the AAT had not adequately explained why it rejected certain evidence or how it arrived at its conclusion that the relationship was not genuine.

The court set aside the AAT's decision and remitted the matter to the AAT for redetermination in accordance with the law.