Hamdan (Migration)

[2021] AATA 2585

Hamdan (Migration) [2021] AATA 2585 (4 June 2021)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

REVIEW APPLICANT:  Mrs Maha Hamdan

VISA APPLICANT:  Mr Odai El Hallak

CASE NUMBER:  1809133

HOME AFFAIRS REFERENCE(S):          OSF2017/007725 OSF2017007725

MEMBER:Hugh Sanderson

DATE:4 June 2021

PLACE OF DECISION:  Sydney

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 04 June 2021 at 12:44pm

CATCHWORDS
MIGRATION – Prospective Marriage (Temporary) (Class TO) visa – Subclass 300 (Prospective Marriage) – visa applicant and sponsor now married – foreign marriage – decision under review remitted

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

STATEMENT OF DECISION AND REASONS

APPLICATION FOR REVIEW

1. This is an application for review of a decision made by a delegate of the Minister for Home Affairs to refuse to grant the visa applicant a Prospective Marriage (Temporary) (Class TO) visa under s 65 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (the Act).

2. The visa applicant applied for the visa on 20 April 2017 as the prospective spouse of their sponsor, the review applicant. The delegate refused to grant the visa on 8 March 2018.

3. The review applicant applied to the Tribunal on 3 April 2018 for review of the delegate’s decision. The Tribunal has been advised that the parties are now married.

   CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE

4. 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, reg 2.08E of the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth) (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.

5. 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 (Cth) (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 within a prohibited relationship, whether the consent of each party was real consent, and whether the marriage is voidable under the local law.

6. In the present case, the review applicant informed the Tribunal that she and the visa applicant were married in Lebanon on 28 March 2020. The Tribunal has been provided with evidence of the marriage in the form of a Lebanese marriage certificate and translation. It is noted the review applicant travelled to Lebanon on 27 January 2020 and has not returned to Australia since then. She reports that she is currently pregnant to the visa applicant.

7. On the evidence before it, the Tribunal finds that the visa applicant applied for a Prospective Marriage (Temporary) (Class TO) visa, the Minister refused to grant the visa, and the sponsor of the visa applicant applied for review of that decision in accordance with the Act.

8. The Tribunal is also satisfied that in the period after the delegate’s decision was made and before the review application was finally determined the visa applicant married the prospective spouse, 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 reg 2.08E(2A) are satisfied, and in accordance with reg 2.08E(2B) the application must be remitted to the Minister for reconsideration.

   DECISION

9. 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.

   Hugh Sanderson
   Member