Mak (Migration)

This matter concerned an appeal before the Migration Review Tribunal regarding the refusal of Partner (Provisional) (Class UF) visas for a review applicant and a visa applicant. The review applicant, a 70-year-old Australian citizen, sponsored the visa applicant, a 54-year-old Vietnamese citizen, for a partner visa. The parties met online in 2019, married in Vietnam in October 2019, and the visa applicant subsequently travelled to Australia in 2023. The Tribunal was required to determine whether the parties had demonstrated a genuine and continuing relationship, considering the financial, household, and social aspects, as well as the nature of their commitment to each other, as stipulated by the Migration Regulations 1994.

The Tribunal's reasoning focused on significant inconsistencies and a lack of credible evidence presented by the parties. Despite the submission of documents such as money transfer receipts and photographs, the Tribunal found numerous discrepancies between the parties' oral evidence and their documentary submissions, as well as between their own accounts of key aspects of their relationship. These included conflicting statements regarding their introduction, the visa applicant's interactions with the review applicant's sons, their respective living arrangements during the visa applicant's visit to Australia, and even details about their wedding. Furthermore, the review applicant exhibited difficulty recalling recent events, which he attributed to age-related memory issues, though this was not independently substantiated. The Tribunal also noted the review applicant's unexplained overseas travel without informing the visa applicant.

Applying the principles outlined in Regulation 1.15A of the Migration Regulations 1994, which mandates consideration of financial, household, social aspects, and the nature of commitment, the Tribunal concluded that the evidence did not establish a genuine and continuing relationship. The inconsistencies and vagueness in the parties' accounts, coupled with the lack of independent corroboration for crucial elements of their relationship, led the Tribunal to affirm the decision not to grant the visas. Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the Partner (Provisional) (Class UF) visas to the applicants.