Bahta (Migration)

This matter concerned an application for review of a decision not to grant a Prospective Marriage (Temporary) (Class TO) visa, subclass 300. The review applicant, who was the sponsor, sought to have the decision to refuse the visa to his partner set aside. The Administrative Appeals Tribunal, constituted by Member Amanda Mendes Da Costa, considered the evidence and submissions before it.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the parties to the proposed marriage had met in person since each of them turned 18 and whether they were known to each other personally, as required by clause 300.214 of the Migration Regulations 1994. The Tribunal also considered the review applicant's engagement with the review process and his failure to provide requested information.

The Tribunal noted that while the visa applicant had nominated the review applicant as her partner and stated they met in April 2005, and committed to a shared life in January 2013, the Department had requested evidence of this meeting in Sudan in February 2016, which was not provided. The review applicant's letter to the Tribunal detailed his attempts to travel to Israel for a wedding ceremony, including a hotel booking, but did not provide direct evidence of meeting the visa applicant in person after both had turned 18. The Tribunal found that the visa applicant had not satisfied the criteria for the grant of the visa.

Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the Prospective Marriage (Temporary) (Class TO) visa.