Chan (Migration)

This matter concerned an application for a Partner (Temporary) (Class UK) visa, Subclass 820 (Partner), before the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. The applicant sought to establish that they were in a genuine and continuing spouse relationship with the sponsor, an Australian citizen. The Tribunal was required to determine whether the parties met the criteria for a spouse relationship as defined by the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth) and its associated regulations, and whether there were compelling reasons to waive Schedule 3 criteria, which were not substantively addressed by the applicant.

The primary legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the applicant and the sponsor were in a valid marriage and whether they met the other requirements of a spouse relationship, namely a mutual commitment to a shared life to the exclusion of others, a genuine and continuing relationship, and living together or not living separately and apart on a permanent basis. The Tribunal also considered the financial, household, and social aspects of the relationship, as well as the nature of the parties' commitment to each other.

The Tribunal found that the parties were validly married on 17 April 2013. However, regarding the financial aspects of the relationship, the Tribunal noted that while joint car insurance, the sponsor's will identifying the applicant as his spouse, and statements from a joint bank account were provided, the sponsor's income was deposited into a sole account. The parties' explanation that the sponsor did not use the joint account due to forgetting his password, and their inability to identify any transfers from his sole account to the joint account, raised concerns about the genuineness of their shared financial affairs. The Tribunal also noted the sponsor's multiple overseas travels without the applicant and the lack of substantive submissions regarding compelling reasons to waive Schedule 3 criteria.

Ultimately, the Tribunal concluded that the decision under review should be affirmed, finding that the applicant had not satisfied the requirements for a spouse relationship.