EL Rahim (Migration)

This matter concerned an application for review of a decision to refuse a Prospective Marriage (Temporary) (Class TO) visa, subclass 300. The review applicant, who was the sponsor, informed the Tribunal that the visa applicant had married the sponsor after the delegate's decision but before the review application was finally determined. The Tribunal was provided with a marriage certificate from Lebanon, and evidence indicated that both parties were over 18 years of age at the time of the marriage and that there was no indication of a prohibited relationship or any other factor rendering the marriage void.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether, in light of the parties' subsequent marriage, the application for a Prospective Marriage visa should be remitted for reconsideration as an application for a Partner visa. This required the Tribunal to determine if the marriage was valid for the purposes of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth) and if the requirements of regulation 2.08E of the *Migration Regulations 1994* (Cth) were met.

The Tribunal applied regulation 2.08E, which mandates that if a visa applicant validly marries the 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. This regulation allows the applicant to be assessed for a spouse visa. The Tribunal considered section 12 of the *Migration Act* and Part VA of the *Marriage Act 1961* (Cth) regarding the recognition of foreign marriages, finding that the marriage solemnised in Lebanon was valid under Australian law, as no exceptions to recognition applied.

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 the remittal.