Le (Migration)

This matter concerned an application for a Partner (Temporary) (Class UK) visa, Subclass 820 (Partner), before the Tribunal. The applicant sought to establish that she was the spouse of an Australian permanent resident sponsor, and that she met Public Interest Criterion (PIC) 4020. The core of the dispute revolved around whether the applicant had provided false or misleading information in relation to her and the sponsor's relationship history and the sponsor's other children, and whether there were compelling circumstances to waive the PIC 4020 requirement.

The Tribunal was required to determine whether the applicant had provided false or misleading information in a material particular concerning her application or a prior visa, thereby failing to meet PIC 4020(1)(a). If this criterion was not met, the Tribunal then had to consider whether there were compelling circumstances affecting the interests of Australia or compassionate or compelling circumstances affecting the interests of the sponsor, an Australian permanent resident, that would justify a waiver of PIC 4020(1). Finally, the Tribunal needed to assess whether the applicant was the spouse of the sponsor at the time of the application and at the time of the decision.

The Tribunal considered the applicant's visa application, which stated she had been married to the sponsor from 1984 to 2001, divorced, and remarried in 2015. However, the sponsor's relationship history indicated a relationship with another woman between 2003 and 2013, and the birth of a child during that period. The applicant claimed ignorance of this relationship and child. The Tribunal noted that if the sponsor had been in a relationship contrary to his indications in the Sponsorship Form, this could lead to a conclusion that false or misleading information had been provided, which was material to the application, thus failing PIC 4020(1).

As the Tribunal concluded that PIC 4020(1) was not met and that there were no compelling or compassionate circumstances justifying a waiver, it affirmed the decision to refuse the visa. Consequently, it was unnecessary to make a determination on the other criteria for the visa.