Ali (Migration)

This matter concerned an application for a Partner (Temporary) (Class UK) visa by Muhammad Haider Ali, a citizen of Pakistan, sponsored by Hoa Ngoc Tram Nguyen, an Australian citizen. The core dispute revolved around whether the parties were in a genuine and continuing de facto relationship at the time of the visa application and at the time of the Tribunal's decision, as required by the Migration Regulations 1994. The Tribunal was tasked with assessing the financial, household, social aspects of the relationship, and the nature of the parties' commitment to each other.

The legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the applicant and sponsor met the criteria for being in a de facto relationship under clauses 820.211(2)(a) and 820.221 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations, and regulation 2.03A. Specifically, the Tribunal had to determine if the parties had a mutual commitment to a shared life to the exclusion of all others, if their relationship was genuine and continuing, and if they lived together, or if they did not live separately and apart on a permanent basis, at both the time of the visa application and the time of the decision. The Tribunal also considered the relevance of events occurring after the visa application date in assessing the relationship at the time of application.

The Tribunal reasoned that while the parties had lived separately for a period due to the sponsor's mother residing with her, and this separation was influenced by familial prejudice and COVID-19 travel restrictions, the evidence supported a finding of a genuine and continuing relationship. The Tribunal noted the parties had been in a relationship for over seven years and had registered their relationship as a civil partnership. It found that the parties had demonstrated a strong commitment to each other, supported each other through difficult times, and clearly viewed their relationship as long-term. The Tribunal concluded that the parties met the requirements of section 5CB of the Act at the time of the visa application and continued to meet these requirements at the time of the decision, including the criterion that they did not live separately and apart on a permanent basis.

Consequently, the Tribunal found that the visa applicant met the requirements of clauses 820.211(2) and 820.221 of the Regulations. The Tribunal remitted the application for reconsideration with a direction that the applicant meets these specified criteria.