Charu Vikram (Migration)

This matter concerned an appeal by the applicant, Charu Vikram, against a decision to affirm the refusal of a Partner (Temporary) (Class UK) visa, Subclass 820 (Partner). The applicant had applied for the visa on the basis of a de facto relationship with the sponsoring partner. The core dispute revolved around whether the applicant continued to meet the criteria for the visa at the time of the decision, particularly concerning the existence and genuineness of the de facto relationship.

The Tribunal was required to determine whether the applicant was the spouse or de facto partner of the sponsoring partner at the time of the decision, as stipulated by clause 820.211(2)(a) of the Migration Regulations 1994. This involved assessing whether the parties had a mutual commitment to a shared life to the exclusion of all others, whether the relationship was genuine and continuing, and whether they lived together or did not live separately and apart on a permanent basis. The Tribunal also had to consider whether any of the exceptions outlined in clause 820.221 of the Regulations applied, such as the death of the sponsor, family violence, or specific court orders concerning children.

The Tribunal reasoned that the applicant's de facto relationship with the sponsor had ceased, and the sponsorship had been withdrawn, as evidenced by information provided by the sponsor and not refuted by the applicant. Despite being given an opportunity to respond to this information, the applicant failed to provide any evidence to demonstrate that the relationship continued to meet the regulatory requirements, including aspects such as shared living arrangements, financial interdependence, social presentation, or mutual commitment. Consequently, the Tribunal found that the applicant did not satisfy the primary criteria for the visa. Furthermore, the Tribunal considered the exceptions under clause 820.221 and found that none of them were met, as there was no evidence of the sponsor's death, family violence, or relevant court orders concerning children.

As the applicant failed to satisfy the requirements of clause 820.221(1) and none of the exceptions in clause 820.221 applied, the Tribunal concluded that the applicant did not meet the criteria for the visa. Accordingly, the Tribunal affirmed the delegate's decision.