GEBREMESKEL (Migration)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal considered an appeal by a visa applicant against a decision to refuse a Partner (Provisional) (Class UF) visa. The visa applicant claimed to be the spouse of an Australian citizen. The core of the dispute was whether the parties met the requirements of a married relationship as defined by the Migration Act 1958 (Cth).

The Tribunal was required to determine whether the parties were in a married relationship, which necessitates, among other things, a mutual commitment to a shared life as a married couple to the exclusion of all others, and that the couple live together or do not live separately and apart on a permanent basis. In making this assessment, the Tribunal had to consider all the circumstances of the relationship, including financial, household, social aspects, and the nature of their commitment to each other, as outlined in regulation 1.15A(3) of the Migration Regulations 1994.

The Tribunal found that while the parties were validly married according to the evidence presented, they failed to demonstrate a mutual commitment to a shared life to the exclusion of others. This conclusion was based on the limited evidence provided, particularly the lack of evidence regarding the pooling of financial resources and the nature of their household arrangements. The Tribunal noted that the only physical evidence submitted after the review applicant lodged his application was on 12 December 2022, despite the delegate's decision being made earlier and the review applicant's subsequent return to Ethiopia.

Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the visa applicant a Partner (Provisional) (Class UF) visa, as the visa applicant did not satisfy the criteria for the grant of the visa.