Kaneva (Migration)

This matter concerned an application for a Partner (Temporary) (Class UK) visa, Subclass 820 (Partner (Temporary)), by an applicant seeking to establish that she was the de facto partner of an Australian citizen sponsor. The primary dispute revolved around whether the parties met the definition of a de facto relationship as stipulated in section 5CB of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth) and the requirements of regulation 2.03A of the *Migration Regulations 1994* (Cth). The decision was made by Member Helena Claringbold.

The legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the applicant was the de facto partner of the sponsor, as defined by the Act, and whether she satisfied the criteria under regulation 2.03A of the Regulations. To determine if a de facto relationship existed, the Tribunal was required to consider all circumstances, including the financial and social aspects of the relationship, the nature of the parties' household, and their commitment to each other, as outlined in regulation 1.09A(3).

The Tribunal considered the evidence regarding the parties' financial arrangements, noting that while the sponsor initially bore most expenses, the applicant contributed to utilities and groceries, and a joint bank account was established. The Tribunal accepted that the parties pooled financial resources and shared day-to-day household expenses. Despite the absence of joint ownership of major assets or liabilities, the Tribunal found that the parties demonstrated a mutual commitment to a shared life, the relationship was genuine and continuing, they lived together, and were not related by family.

Ultimately, the Tribunal remitted the application for reconsideration by the Minister, directing that the applicant met the specified criteria for the Subclass 820 visa, including those under cl.820.211 and cl.820.221 of Schedule 2, and r.2.03A of the Regulations.