Johnson (Migration)

This matter concerned an application for a Prospective Marriage (Temporary) (Class TO) visa, subclass 300, made by Mr Onivogui, with Ms Johnson as the sponsor. The decision under review was made by the Department of Home Affairs, and the case was heard by Mireya Hyland, a Member of the Tribunal. The core of the dispute revolved around whether the applicant and sponsor met the various criteria for the visa, particularly concerning their genuine intention to marry and live together as spouses, and whether they had met in person.

The Tribunal was required to determine whether the visa applicant intended to marry an eligible person, whether the applicant was of the required age, if the sponsorship was prohibited, if the applicant was sponsored as required, and crucially, whether the parties had met in person since turning 18 and were known to each other personally. The Tribunal also needed to consider the remaining criteria for the visa, including the genuine intention of the parties to marry and live together as spouses.

In its reasoning, the Tribunal found that the applicant and sponsor met several preliminary criteria. It accepted that Ms Johnson was an Australian citizen and over 18 at the time of application, satisfying clause 300.211. The Tribunal also found that Mr Onivogui was over 18, meeting clause 300.212A, and that Ms Johnson was not prohibited from sponsoring him under clause 300.212. Furthermore, the Tribunal accepted that Ms Johnson sponsored Mr Onivogui and was over 18, fulfilling clause 300.213. Regarding clause 300.214, while noting some concerns about the evidence of Mr Onivogui's entry into Ghana, the Tribunal accepted, based on flight tickets and Ms Johnson's evidence, that they met in Ghana in December 2015 after both had turned 18.

Consequently, the Tribunal remitted the application for reconsideration by the Minister, directing that the visa applicant met the criteria specified in clauses 300.211, 300.212A, 300.212, 300.213, 300.214, 300.215, 300.216, and 300.221 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations. The remaining criteria, including the genuine intention to marry and live together as spouses, were to be considered further.