LE (Migration)

This matter concerned an appeal against a decision not to grant the applicant a Prospective Marriage (Temporary) (Class TO) visa. The core dispute revolved around whether the parties genuinely intended to marry within the prescribed timeframe and to live together as spouses in a genuine and continuing spousal relationship at the time of application and decision.

The legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the parties possessed a genuine intention to marry within the relevant timeframe and a genuine intention to live together as spouses in a continuing spousal relationship. This required an assessment of the credibility of the information provided by the parties and the veracity of their claims regarding their relationship and marriage intentions.

The Tribunal considered extensive evidence, including statements from the parties, details of their relationship history, and information provided during interviews. Crucially, the Tribunal noted inconsistencies and inaccuracies in the information provided by the applicant, particularly concerning the timing and nature of their wedding celebrations and the reasons for not obtaining a marriage certificate. While acknowledging the birth of a child and a DNA report confirming biological parentage, the Tribunal found that the discrepancies in the applicant's statements, including attributing inexact answers to "job pressure," undermined the credibility of their claims. The Tribunal concluded that the applicant did not satisfy the criteria for the visa.

Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the Prospective Marriage (Temporary) (Class TO) visa to the applicant.