Cingoz (Migration)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal considered the case of a visa applicant seeking a Partner (Provisional) (Class UF) visa, subclass 309. The dispute centred on whether the visa applicant was the spouse or de facto partner of the review applicant, an Australian citizen, as required by the *Migration Regulations 1994* (Cth). The Tribunal was tasked with determining if the evidence presented satisfied the legislative criteria for a genuine and continuing spousal relationship.

The primary legal issue was whether the visa applicant and the review applicant were in a married relationship that was genuine and continuing, as defined by section 5F of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth). This definition requires, among other things, a mutual commitment to a shared life as a married couple to the exclusion of all others, and that the couple live together or not permanently apart. The Tribunal was required 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 regulation 1.15A(3).

The Tribunal found that while the parties had a valid marriage certificate, this evidence alone was insufficient to demonstrate a mutual commitment to a shared life or a genuine and continuing relationship. Despite evidence of financial support, joint property ownership, travel, daily communication, and mutual representation as a married couple, the Tribunal weighed this against several factors indicating a lack of genuine commitment. These included the visa applicant never meeting or speaking to the review applicant's children, the visa applicant's ignorance of basic details about the review applicant's life, and concerning chat records suggesting a rapid proposal and migration discussion immediately following. Further, the visa applicant's lack of recall regarding their honeymoon accommodation and the limited evidence of emotional support, particularly in light of the visa applicant's medical treatment, also contributed to the Tribunal's dissatisfaction. The review applicant's unawareness of the visa applicant's hobby further undermined the claimed genuineness of the relationship.

Consequently, the Tribunal was not satisfied that the parties met the requirements of section 5F(2) of the *Migration Act 1958* at the time the visa application was made. The decision under review was therefore affirmed.