Kbolo (Migration)

This matter concerned an appeal by Mr Kbolo against the decision of the Department of Home Affairs to refuse him a Partner (Provisional) (Class UF) visa, subclass 309. The primary issue before the Tribunal was whether Mr Kbolo and Ms Omwony were in a genuine and continuing spousal relationship.

The Tribunal was required to consider all the circumstances of the relationship, including evidence of its financial and social aspects, the nature of the household, and the commitment of the parties to each other, as stipulated by regulation 1.15A(3) of the Migration Regulations 1994. Key areas of concern included the short duration of the relationship, the applicant's limited knowledge of his partner's personal details, and his history of visa refusals.

In its reasoning, the Tribunal noted that Mr Kbolo had not seen his wife in person since January 2016. He stated he was not sending money to Ms Omwony due to financial difficulties and was relying on Centrelink benefits, having not declared his marriage to the authorities due to a lack of understanding of the system. The Tribunal found this representation to Centrelink as a single person potentially relevant to the social aspects of the relationship. Furthermore, there was no evidence of joint ownership of assets or liabilities, and while Mr Kbolo had provided some financial support for shared expenses when living together in Egypt, this had ceased.

Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the decisions not to grant the visa applicants Partner (Provisional) (Class UF) visas. The secondary visa applicant, relying on Ms Omwony's status, also failed to satisfy the secondary criteria and the visa was refused to her as well.