Cao (Migration)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) considered the case of an applicant seeking a Partner (Temporary) (Class UK) visa, Subclass 820. The dispute centred on whether the applicant and their sponsor had a genuine and continuing relationship, as required by the migration regulations. The delegate of the Minister had previously refused to grant the visa, a decision which the applicant sought to have reviewed by the Tribunal.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicant and their sponsor had demonstrated that their relationship was genuine and continuing, notwithstanding certain inconsistencies and perceived weaknesses in their evidence. Specifically, the Tribunal had to assess whether the short duration of their acquaintance before marriage, communication difficulties, and a perceived lack of common interests were sufficient to conclude that the relationship was not genuine, or whether it was being used as a means to remain in Australia.

In reaching its decision, the Tribunal considered the totality of the evidence presented. It noted that while the sponsor had visited the applicant's family, this was weighed against a range of inconsistencies in the evidence provided by both the applicant and the sponsor. The Tribunal found that these inconsistencies, coupled with the limited duration of the relationship prior to marriage and the identified communication challenges, led to the conclusion that the relationship was not genuine and continuing. The Tribunal affirmed the delegate's decision not to grant the visa.