D'Jordan (Migration)

This matter concerned an appeal by D'Jordan against a decision regarding a Prospective Marriage (Temporary) (Class TO) visa, subclass 300. The appeal was heard by Maxina Martellotta. The core of the dispute revolved around whether the applicant continued to meet the criteria for the visa at the time of the decision, as required by clause 300.221 of the Migration Regulations.

The Tribunal was required to determine if the visa applicant met the criteria outlined in clauses 300.211, 300.214, 300.215, and 300.216 at the time of the visa application. These clauses stipulate that the applicant must intend to marry an eligible Australian citizen, permanent resident, or New Zealand citizen; that the parties must have met in person and be personally known to each other; that the parties must genuinely intend to marry during the visa period; and that they must genuinely intend to live together as spouses.

The Tribunal found that the requirements of clause 300.211 were met, as the visa applicant intended to marry an Australian citizen, and this was supported by documentation and oral evidence. Furthermore, the Tribunal was satisfied that the parties met the requirements of clause 300.214, having met in person since turning 18 and being personally known to each other. This conclusion was based on detailed evidence of their interactions, including initial introduction via family, multiple meetings in Vietnam and Malaysia, an engagement event, and a period spent together in Australia, corroborated by documentary evidence and third-party statements. The Tribunal indicated that it would proceed to consider the remaining criteria. The matter was remitted for reconsideration.