Dharmareddy (Migration)

This matter concerned an application for a Partner (Migrant) (Class BC) visa, Subclass 100, made by Mr Gnanasegaran Dharmareddy. The applicant sought review of a decision by the Department to refuse the visa, on the basis that the delegate was not satisfied that the applicant continued to be in a genuine spousal relationship with the sponsor. The Tribunal considered evidence from the applicant, sponsor, and their daughter, and found them to be credible.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicant met the requirements of cl.100.221 of the Migration Regulations 1994, specifically whether he was the spouse of the sponsoring partner at the time of the decision. The definition of "spouse" under s.5F of the Migration Act 1958 requires that the parties be validly married, have a mutual commitment to a shared life as a married couple to the exclusion of others, that the relationship be genuine and continuing, and that they live together or not separately and apart on a permanent basis. The Tribunal was required to consider all circumstances of the relationship, including financial and social aspects, the nature of the household, and the commitment to each other, as outlined in r.1.15A(3) of the Regulations.

The Tribunal accepted that the parties had a history dating back to 1982, were married in 1983, divorced in 2001, and remarried in 2013. They had resided together in Australia since the applicant’s arrival in December 2015. The Tribunal found that the parties had provided detailed and consistent evidence regarding their relationship, living arrangements, financial affairs, and families, and that they were credible. Based on this evidence, the Tribunal concluded that the applicant met the criteria for a Subclass 100 visa under cl.100.221(2)(b).

The Tribunal remitted the application for a Partner (Migrant) (Class BC) visa for reconsideration, with the direction that the applicant meets the criteria specified in cl.100.221(2)(b) of Schedule 2 to the Regulations.