Guido (Migration)

This matter concerned an application for a Partner (Temporary) (Class UK) visa, Subclass 820 (Spouse). The applicant sought review of a decision made by the Tribunal concerning her eligibility for the visa. The core of the dispute revolved around whether the applicant and her sponsor were in a genuine and continuing spousal relationship that met the requirements of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth) and associated Regulations.

The Tribunal was required to determine whether the applicant and the sponsor were validly married and, if so, whether they had a mutual commitment to a shared life as a married couple to the exclusion of all others, that their relationship was genuine and continuing, and that they lived together and not separately and apart on a permanent basis. These considerations were to be made in light of all the circumstances of the relationship, including the financial and social aspects, the nature of their household, and their commitment to each other, as outlined in regulation 1.15A(3). The Tribunal also had to consider whether these criteria were met at the time of the visa application and continued to be met at the time of the decision.

The Tribunal found that the applicant and sponsor were validly married in Western Australia on 28 August 2016, satisfying section 5F(2)(a) of the Act. In assessing the factors under regulation 1.15A(3), the Tribunal considered evidence relating to their financial arrangements, including a joint bank account for bills and utilities, shared costs for the applicant's daughter, and the sponsor's intention to add the applicant to his home title. Despite minimal documentary evidence for some claims, the Tribunal found the totality of the parties' evidence credible and accepted it as demonstrating joint financial responsibility and a pooling of resources. The Tribunal concluded that the parties had a mutual commitment to a shared life, a genuine and continuing relationship, and lived together, thus meeting the requirements of section 5F(2) at the time of application. The Tribunal was also satisfied that these requirements continued to be met at the time of the decision.

Consequently, the Tribunal determined that the applicant met the primary criteria for the visa at the time of application and continued to meet them at the time of the decision. The matter was remitted for reconsideration to determine whether the secondary applicant satisfied the criteria to be a member of the family unit of the primary visa applicant.