KWON (Migration)

This matter concerned an application for a Partner (Temporary) (Class UK) visa, Subclass 820, made by Mr Kwon, who claimed to be the spouse of Ms Nam, an Australian citizen. The primary issue before the Tribunal was whether Mr Kwon and Ms Nam met the criteria for a spousal relationship at the time of the visa application and at the time of the decision. The delegate had refused to grant the visa on the basis of insufficient evidence demonstrating a genuine spousal relationship.

The Tribunal was required to determine whether Mr Kwon and Ms Nam were validly married and, if so, whether the other requirements for a spousal relationship were met. These requirements, as defined by section 5F of the Migration Act 1958, include a mutual commitment to a shared life as husband and wife to the exclusion of all others, a genuine and continuing relationship, and living together or not living separately and apart on a permanent basis. In assessing these matters, the Tribunal was directed to consider all circumstances of the relationship, including financial and social aspects, the nature of their household, and their commitment to each other, as outlined in regulation 1.15A(3).

The Tribunal accepted the oral and documentary evidence presented by Mr Kwon and Ms Nam, including their consistent testimony regarding the inception and history of their relationship and their current circumstances. It was satisfied that they were validly married on 28 July 2016, a fact supported by a certified marriage certificate. Furthermore, the Tribunal found that they shared income and expenses jointly, as evidenced by their consistent accounts of financial management, joint savings, Mr Kwon's tax return listing Ms Nam as his spouse, and joint registration documents for a purchased car. The Tribunal also noted that it could have regard to the subsequent history of the relationship to assess its genuineness at the time of application, citing the principles from *Bretag v Immigration Review Tribunal* and *Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs v Pochi*.

The Tribunal concluded that the matter should be remitted for reconsideration.