DAYOUB (Migration)

This matter concerned an appeal by Mr. Dayoub against a decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (the Tribunal) which affirmed the refusal of his Partner (Temporary) (Class UK) visa application, subclass 820. The core of the dispute revolved around whether Mr. Dayoub and his sponsor were in a genuine and continuing spousal relationship, as required by migration legislation.

The Tribunal was tasked with determining whether the applicant and the sponsor were in a genuine and continuing spousal relationship, and if so, whether there were compelling reasons to waive Schedule 3 criteria. This required the Tribunal to assess the evidence presented regarding the financial, household, social, and commitment aspects of the relationship, as well as the parties' mutual commitment to a shared life.

In reaching its decision, the Tribunal found the applicant's oral evidence to be inconsistent, vague, and not credible. The sponsor did not attend the hearing. The Tribunal placed little weight on the applicant's claims, noting a lack of evidence demonstrating pooled financial resources, shared daily expenses, or a planned financial future. Furthermore, there was no evidence of joint ownership of significant assets, joint liabilities, or a shared household. The Tribunal also found insufficient evidence that the parties presented themselves as being in a spousal relationship to the wider community or that their relationship was socially recognised beyond the applicant's immediate family. While acknowledging the parties had known each other for over five years, the Tribunal concluded that the evidence did not support them having lived together, drawn significant companionship or emotional support from each other, or viewed their relationship as long-term.

Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that the weight of the evidence did not support a finding that the parties had ever been in a genuine and continuing relationship. The financial, household, social, and commitment aspects were not considered indicative of a couple with a genuine, mutual commitment to a shared life. Accordingly, the Tribunal affirmed the decision under review.