Dang (Migration)

This case concerned a visa applicant seeking a Partner (Provisional) (Class UF) visa (subclass 309). The central dispute was whether the applicant was in a genuine spousal relationship with the sponsor, an Australian citizen, as defined by section 5F of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth). The matter came before the Tribunal for determination.

The Tribunal was required to assess whether the parties met the criteria for a spousal relationship under section 5F of the Act. This involved determining if they were married under a valid marriage, had a mutual commitment to a shared life to the exclusion of others, and if their relationship was genuine and continuing, including whether they lived together or not separately and apart on a permanent basis. The assessment was to consider all circumstances, including financial and social aspects, the nature of their household, and their commitment to each other, as further detailed in regulation 1.15A(3) of the *Migration Regulations 1994* (Cth).

The Tribunal found that while the parties were validly married and had met, socialised, and communicated, there were significant inconsistencies in their evidence, particularly regarding the financial dependence of the applicant's children. Furthermore, the parties did not demonstrate a pooling of financial resources, joint ownership of assets, or shared day-to-day household expenses. Despite evidence of financial transfers from the sponsor to the applicant and some social interaction, the Tribunal was not satisfied that the parties had a mutual commitment to a shared life to the exclusion of all others, nor that their relationship was genuine and continuing. The Tribunal also noted that crucial documentary evidence was not provided in an understandable format within the extended timeframe given.

Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the decisions not to grant the visa applicants the Partner (Provisional) (Class UF) visas, as they had not satisfied the primary criteria for the grant of the visa.