Dandan (Migration)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (Migration) considered an application for review of a decision to refuse a Prospective Marriage (Temporary) (Class TO) visa. The review applicant, who was the sponsor, informed the Tribunal that the visa applicant and the sponsor had married in Lebanon after the delegate's decision but before the review application was finally determined. The Tribunal was provided with a marriage certificate as evidence of this marriage.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether, in light of the parties' subsequent marriage, the application should be remitted to the Minister for reconsideration as an application for a spouse visa. This required the Tribunal to determine if the marriage was validly recognised under Australian law for the purposes of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth).

The Tribunal applied regulation 2.08E of the *Migration Regulations 1994* (Cth), which mandates that if a visa applicant validly marries their sponsor after a decision to refuse a Prospective Marriage visa and notifies the Tribunal before the review is finalised, the application must be remitted to the Minister. The Tribunal also referred to section 12 of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth) and Part VA of the *Marriage Act 1961* (Cth), which generally recognise foreign marriages solemnised under local civil law as valid in Australia, subject to specific exceptions not relevant in this case. Being satisfied that the marriage in Lebanon was validly recognised under Australian law and that the requirements of regulation 2.08E(2A) were met, the Tribunal directed the remission of the visa application.

Consequently, the Tribunal remitted the visa application to the Minister for reconsideration, with the direction that it be treated as an application for a Partner (Migrant) (Class BC) visa and a Partner (Provisional) (Class UF) visa, made on the day of remission.