Hirmiz (Migration)

This matter concerned an application for review by the sponsor of a decision to refuse a Prospective Marriage (Temporary) (Class TO) visa, subclass 300. The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (the Tribunal) was advised that the applicant and the sponsor had married since the delegate's decision was made and prior to the Tribunal's determination of the review application.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether regulation 2.08E of the *Migration Regulations 1994* (Cth) applied in circumstances where the parties to a prospective marriage visa application had married after the refusal decision but before the review application was finalised. This regulation dictates the Tribunal's obligations when such a marriage is notified and recognised as valid.

The Tribunal reasoned that where an applicant for a Prospective Marriage visa validly marries the sponsor after the refusal of that visa, and notifies the Tribunal of this marriage before the review is determined, regulation 2.08E requires the Tribunal to remit the application to the Minister. The application is then to be treated as an application for a Partner (Migrant) (Class BC) visa and a Partner (Provisional) (Class UF) visa. The Tribunal found that the parties had married in Lebanon and provided a marriage certificate as evidence. It was satisfied that the marriage was recognised as valid for the purposes of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth), as per section 12 of the Act and Part VA of the *Marriage Act 1961* (Cth).

Consequently, the Tribunal remitted the visa application to the Minister for reconsideration, with the direction that it be taken as an application for a Partner (Migrant) (Class BC) visa and a Partner (Provisional) (Class UF) visa, made on the day of remission.