Ho (Migration)

This matter concerned an application for review of a decision not to grant the applicant a Partner (Temporary) (Class UK) visa. The applicant claimed to have married the sponsor in April 2016, having met in November 2015. The Tribunal considered evidence including statutory declarations, a family violence restraining order, and professional reports, as well as oral evidence from two witnesses who were friends of the applicant and sponsor.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicant and sponsor had a genuine and continuing relationship at the time of the visa application, as required by the Migration Regulations 1994. Specifically, the Tribunal had to determine if the financial, household, and social aspects of the relationship, along with the nature of their commitment to each other, indicated a genuine union, or if the relationship had ceased, as claimed by the applicant, and if family violence was a factor.

The Tribunal reasoned that while the witnesses provided credible evidence of a genuine relationship that subsequently deteriorated, the family violence restraining order and professional reports did not establish the nature of the relationship at the time of the application. Applying the criteria set out in Regulation 1.15A of the Migration Regulations 1994, which mandates consideration of financial, household, social aspects, and the nature of commitment, the Tribunal found that the evidence presented did not demonstrate that the relationship met the genuine and continuing criteria.

Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicant the Partner (Temporary) (Class UK) visa.