Bui (Migration)
Case
•
[2019] AATA 5270
•21 November 2019
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Bui (Migration) [2019] AATA 5270
[2019] AATA 5270
21 November 2019
CaseChat Overview and Summary
This matter concerned an application for a Regional Employer Nomination (Permanent) (Class RN) visa, Subclass 187 (Regional Sponsored Migration Scheme), by a Vietnamese citizen, the applicant, in relation to her relationship with Mr Le. The central dispute was whether the applicant and Mr Le were in a genuine de facto relationship for the requisite 12-month period prior to the visa application, or if compelling and compassionate circumstances warranted a grant of the visa. The decision was made by Nicola Findson, a Member of the Tribunal.
The Tribunal was required to determine if the applicant and Mr Le met the definition of a de facto relationship as stipulated in s 5CB of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth). This involved assessing whether they had a mutual commitment to a shared life to the exclusion of all others, if the relationship was genuine and continuing, if they lived together or did not live separately on a permanent basis, and if they were not related by family. In making this determination, the Tribunal was directed to consider all circumstances of the relationship, including financial and social aspects, the nature of their household, and their commitment to each other, as outlined in r 1.09A(3) of the Regulations.
The Tribunal considered extensive evidence, including statutory declarations, a tenancy agreement, bank statements, and other documents. It found that the parties met the financial aspects of the de facto relationship criteria, noting their contributions to joint living expenses from the commencement of cohabitation in May 2015 and the subsequent establishment of a joint bank account in November 2016 for shared expenses and purchases. While the Tribunal was satisfied with the evidence regarding the financial aspects, the decision text indicates that other criteria for the visa were not fully assessed or determined at this stage.
Consequently, the Tribunal remitted the application for reconsideration by the Minister, with a direction that the applicant met the criteria for a Subclass 187 visa concerning the de facto relationship.
The Tribunal was required to determine if the applicant and Mr Le met the definition of a de facto relationship as stipulated in s 5CB of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth). This involved assessing whether they had a mutual commitment to a shared life to the exclusion of all others, if the relationship was genuine and continuing, if they lived together or did not live separately on a permanent basis, and if they were not related by family. In making this determination, the Tribunal was directed to consider all circumstances of the relationship, including financial and social aspects, the nature of their household, and their commitment to each other, as outlined in r 1.09A(3) of the Regulations.
The Tribunal considered extensive evidence, including statutory declarations, a tenancy agreement, bank statements, and other documents. It found that the parties met the financial aspects of the de facto relationship criteria, noting their contributions to joint living expenses from the commencement of cohabitation in May 2015 and the subsequent establishment of a joint bank account in November 2016 for shared expenses and purchases. While the Tribunal was satisfied with the evidence regarding the financial aspects, the decision text indicates that other criteria for the visa were not fully assessed or determined at this stage.
Consequently, the Tribunal remitted the application for reconsideration by the Minister, with a direction that the applicant met the criteria for a Subclass 187 visa concerning the de facto relationship.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Immigration
-
Administrative Law
Legal Concepts
-
Judicial Review
-
Procedural Fairness
-
Statutory Construction
-
Remedies
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Citations
Bui (Migration) [2019] AATA 5270
Cases Citing This Decision
0
Cases Cited
0
Statutory Material Cited
0