Forge (Migration)

[2018] AATA 1583

Forge (Migration) [2018] AATA 1583 (18 April 2018)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:  Migration & Refugee Division

REVIEW APPLICANT:  Mr Terence Michael Forge

VISA APPLICANTS:  Ms Lai Kwan Pang Mr Long Sing Wong

Miss Cheuk Ying Wong

CASE NUMBER:  1711604

DIBP REFERENCE(S):  BCC2016/1365797

MEMBER:  Fiona Meagher

DATE:  18 April 2018

PLACE OF DECISION:  Brisbane

DECISION:The Tribunal remits the visa application to the Minister for reconsideration, with the direction that the application be taken also to be an application for:

·a Partner (Migrant) (Class BC) visa; and

·a Partner (Provisional) (Class UF) visa

that is made on the day the visa application is remitted to the Minister.

Statement made on 18 April 2018 at 7:28pm

CATCHWORDS
Migration – Prospective Marriage (Temporary) (Class TO) visa – Subclass 300 (Prospective Marriage) – Parties married before determination of Tribunal decision – Decision remitted with direction

LEGISLATION
Marriage Act 1961 (Cth) Pt VA
Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss 12, 65. 88E
Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth), r 2.08E

STATEMENT OF DECISION AND REASONS APPLICATION FOR REVIEW

1. This is an application for review of decisions made by a delegate of the Minister for Immigration to refuse to grant the visa applicants Prospective Marriage (Temporary) (Class TO) visas under s.65 of the Migration Act 1958 (the Act).

1. The visa applicants applied for the visas on 5 April 2016 on the basis that the first named visa applicant (the primary visa applicant) was the prospective spouse of their sponsor, the review applicant. The delegate refused to grant the visas on 20 April 2017.

1. The review applicant applied to the Tribunal on 31 May 2017 for review of the delegate’s decisions. The Tribunal has been advised that the review applicant and primary visa applicant are now married.

CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE

1. Where an application has been made for review of a decision to refuse to grant a Prospective Marriage visa, and the visa applicant validly marries the sponsor after that decision was made and notifies the Tribunal of the marriage before the review application has been finally determined, r.2.08E of the Migration Regulations 1994 (the Regulations) requires the Tribunal to remit the visa application to the Minister for reconsideration with the direction that the application be taken also to be an application for a Partner (Migrant) (Class BC) and a Partner (Provisional) (Class UF) visa. This allows the now married applicant to be assessed for a spouse visa rather than a prospective marriage visa.

1. For the purpose of deciding whether a marriage is to be recognised as valid for the purposes of the Act, s.12 of the Act provides that Part VA of the Marriage Act 1961 (the Marriage Act) applies as if s.88E of the Marriage Act were omitted. Subject to certain exceptions not relevant to the present matter, foreign marriages recognised under local civil law in the country where they are solemnized will be recognised in Australia under Part VA of the Marriage Act. The exceptions relate to whether either party was already married, whether the parties were of marriageable age at the time of the marriage, whether the parties are withi n a prohibited relationship, whether the consent of each party was real consent, and whether the marriage is voidable under the local law.

1. In the present case, the review applicant informed the Tribunal that he and the primary visa applicant were married in Hurstville, New South Wales on 18 June 2017. The Tribunal has been provided with evidence of the marriage in the form of a certified copy of the New South Wales marriage certificate registered on 19 June 2017, and issued on 23 June 2017. The Tribunal notes from the primary visa applicant’s movement records that she arrived in Australia on a visitor visa on 9 June 2017.

1. On the evidence before it, the Tribunal finds that the applicants applied for Prospective Marriage (Temporary) (Class TO) visas, the Minister refused to grant the visas, and the sponsor applied for review of those decisions in accordance with the Act.

1. The Tribunal is also satisfied that in the period after the delegate’s decisions were made and before the review application was finally determined, the primary visa applicant married the sponsor, the review applicant notified the Tribunal of the marriage, and the marriage is recognised as valid for the purposes of the Act. Therefore, the requirements of r.2.08E(2A) are met and, in accordance with r.2.08E(2B), the application must be remitted to the Minister for reconsideration.

DECISION

1. The Tribunal remits the visa application to the Minister for reconsideration, with the direction that the application be taken also to be an application for:

   ·a Partner (Migrant) (Class BC) visa; and

·a Partner (Provisional) (Class UF) visa

that is made on the day that the visa application is remitted to the Minister.

Fiona Meagher Member