Jaafouri (Migration)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (the Tribunal) considered the case of an applicant seeking a Partner (Migrant) (Class BC) visa, subclass 100. The applicant claimed that his relationship with the sponsor had broken down and that he had been a victim of family violence. The Tribunal was required to determine whether the applicant had suffered family violence committed by the sponsor, as defined by the Migration Regulations 1994.

The central legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicant had established that he had suffered "relevant family violence" as contemplated by the Migration Regulations 1994, specifically in the context of a non-judicially determined claim. This involved assessing the evidence presented by the applicant regarding alleged coercive control, verbal abuse, and threats made by the sponsor, and comparing it against the regulatory definitions of family violence and the circumstances under which such violence is taken to have been suffered or committed.

The Tribunal's reasoning focused on the requirement for the applicant to demonstrate that he had suffered "relevant family violence" and that the sponsor had committed it. The Tribunal noted that the applicant's claims of family violence were not supported by any court orders, injunctions, or convictions against the sponsor. Crucially, the Tribunal found that the opinion of an independent expert, which is binding on the Tribunal in cases of non-judicially determined claims of family violence, concluded that the relevant family violence had not occurred. Consequently, the applicant was not taken to have suffered family violence committed by the sponsor for the purposes of regulation 1.22 of the Migration Regulations 1994.

As the applicant failed to meet the essential criteria for the Partner (Migrant) (Class BC) visa, specifically those relating to the occurrence of family violence, the Tribunal affirmed the decision under review. The Tribunal concluded that the applicant did not satisfy the requirements of clauses 100.221(4)(b) and (c) or 100.221(4C)(b) and (c) of the Migration Regulations 1994, and no alternative sub-criteria were met.