Ghazzi (Migration)

This matter concerned an application for a Partner (Provisional) (Class UF) visa, subclass 309. The visa applicant claimed to be the spouse of the review applicant, an Australian citizen. The core dispute revolved around whether the parties were in a genuine and continuing married relationship as required by the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) and the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth). The Administrative Appeals Tribunal was tasked with reviewing the delegate's decision to refuse the visa.

The Tribunal was required to determine whether the parties met the criteria for a spouse relationship under section 5F of the Act. This involved assessing whether they were married under a valid marriage, whether there was a mutual commitment to a shared life as a married couple to the exclusion of all others, whether the relationship was genuine and continuing, and whether they lived together or not separately and apart on a permanent basis. In making this assessment, the Tribunal had to consider all circumstances of the relationship, including the financial and social aspects, the nature of their household, and their commitment to each other, as detailed in regulation 1.15A(3).

The Tribunal found that the parties were validly married in Lebanon on 25 September 2017, satisfying the requirement of a valid marriage. However, the Tribunal noted that the review applicant's representative had informed the Tribunal of their withdrawal from the matter, but the required change of representation form had not been completed or submitted. Crucially, the Tribunal observed that no substantive evidence had been provided to the Tribunal in support of the claims regarding the genuineness and continuing nature of the spousal relationship, beyond a marriage certificate and an accommodation receipt. The Tribunal concluded that, in the absence of sufficient evidence demonstrating the required mutual commitment, the genuine and continuing nature of the relationship, and the living arrangements, the visa applicant did not satisfy the criteria for the grant of the visa.

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