Law (Migration)

This matter concerned an application for review of a decision not to grant a Partner (Residence) (Class BS) visa. The applicant, a citizen of Hong Kong, claimed to have commenced a de facto relationship with the sponsor, an Australian citizen, in November 2011. The applicant alleged that the relationship ended in February 2015 due to the sponsor's disrespectful behaviour and infidelity, and that she had initiated legal proceedings to recover money from him. The Tribunal was required to determine whether the parties were in a genuine, continuing, and exclusive de facto relationship as required by the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth) at the time the applicant claimed the relationship ended.

The Tribunal considered the definition of a de facto relationship under section 5CB of the *Migration Act*, which requires a mutual commitment to a shared life to the exclusion of all others, a genuine and continuing relationship, cohabitation or not living separately and apart on a permanent basis, and that the couple are not related by family. In assessing these criteria, the Tribunal was required to consider all circumstances of the relationship, including financial and social aspects, the nature of the household, and the commitment to each other, as outlined in regulation 1.09A(3) of the *Migration Regulations 1994* (Cth). The Tribunal noted conflicting and inconsistent statements made by the applicant and sponsor regarding the nature and duration of their relationship, and the limited evidence of a pooled financial life, with joint bank accounts showing minimal transactions and the applicant maintaining separate accounts with a PO Box address.

The Tribunal found that the evidence did not establish that the parties were in a genuine, continuing, and exclusive de facto relationship at the relevant time. The limited financial and household evidence, coupled with the applicant's separate financial arrangements and the timing of her legal proceedings and protection order request, led the Tribunal to conclude that the applicant had not satisfied the criteria for the grant of the visa. Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the delegate's decision.