Dinh (Migration)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal considered an appeal by a visa applicant against the refusal of a Partner (Provisional) (Class UF) visa. The core of the dispute concerned whether the applicant and her sponsor were in a genuine and continuing relationship, as required by the migration regulations.

The Tribunal was tasked with determining whether the evidence presented established that the relationship between the applicant and her sponsor was genuine and continuing. Specifically, the Tribunal had to assess whether the relationship was characterised by mutual commitment to a shared life to the exclusion of all others, and whether the relationship was ongoing.

The Senior Member found that the evidence did not satisfy the criteria for the visa. While the parties were validly married in their home country, the Tribunal noted that the relationship appeared to be based more on age and a supporting and caring dynamic rather than a romantic partnership. Limited evidence was presented regarding companionship, emotional support, and financial interdependence. Although a shared household was established during the sponsor's visits to the applicant, these were constrained by health and COVID-19 restrictions. Furthermore, the Tribunal found the evidence concerning the applicant's previous marriage, separation, and divorce to be inconsistent and unsatisfactory. The parties also demonstrated limited knowledge of each other's lives and adult children, and the marriage had not been notified to Australian authorities.

Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the visa applicant a Partner (Provisional) (Class UF) visa.