Kong (Migration)

This matter concerned an application for a Partner (Temporary) (Class UK) visa, subclass 820. The applicant sought review of a decision to refuse this visa. The court was required to consider the genuineness of the spousal relationship between the applicant and the sponsor, assessing various aspects including the financial elements, the nature of their household, and the commitment to each other.

The legal issues before the court were whether the applicant and sponsor had demonstrated a genuine spousal relationship, considering the financial aspects, the nature of their household, and the nature of their commitment to each other, as required by the Migration Regulations 1994. Specifically, the court had to determine if the evidence presented satisfied the criteria for a subclass 820 Partner visa, particularly in light of the sponsor's stroke and the COVID-19 pandemic restrictions.

The court found that while some of the sponsor's evidence was inaccurate due to a stroke, the applicant's and sponsor's evidence was largely consistent and persuasive. The court placed weight on the minimal but consistent financial evidence given their modest circumstances. Significant weight was given to the detailed and consistent evidence regarding their daily routines and the division of household tasks, particularly before and after the sponsor's stroke, which indicated a long-standing cohabitation. The court also noted the applicant's pivotal role in the sponsor's stroke treatment as reflective of a genuine relationship.

The Tribunal remitted the application for a Partner (Temporary) (Class UK) visa with a direction that the applicant meets the criteria for a Subclass 820 (Partner) visa under clause 820.211(2) of Schedule 2 of the Regulations. The court clarified it did not have jurisdiction to make directions regarding a Partner (Residence) (Class BS) visa application, as the review was solely for the temporary partner visa.