Kammoun (Migration)

This matter concerned a review by the Tribunal of a decision to refuse a Prospective Marriage (Temporary) (Class TO) visa, subclass 300. The visa applicant and the sponsor had married in Lebanon after the initial refusal but before the Tribunal's determination of the review application. The Tribunal was required to consider the implications of this subsequent marriage on the visa application.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the subsequent marriage in Lebanon was valid and, if so, how it affected the processing of the visa application. Specifically, the Tribunal had to determine if the conditions under the *Migration Regulations 1994* (Cth) for remitting the application for reconsideration as a spouse visa were met, and whether the foreign marriage was recognised under Australian law for the purposes of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth).

The Tribunal applied regulation 2.08E of the *Migration Regulations 1994*, which mandates that if a visa applicant validly marries the sponsor after a refusal but before the review is finalised, the Tribunal must remit the application to the Minister. This remission is with a direction that the application be treated as also being for a Partner (Migrant) (Class BC) visa and a Partner (Provisional) (Class UF) visa. The Tribunal also referred to section 12 of the *Migration Act 1958* and Part VA of the *Marriage Act 1961* (Cth), which generally provide for the recognition of foreign marriages solemnised under local civil law, subject to certain exceptions. The Tribunal was satisfied that the marriage in Lebanon was validly solemnised under Lebanese civil law, and no exceptions applied.

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