Man (Migration)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal considered the case of a Chinese citizen and her daughter, who sought review of a decision to refuse them a Subclass 100 (Partner (Migrant)) visa. The applicant claimed to have been a victim of family violence by her sponsor. The core dispute revolved around whether the applicant and her sponsor had maintained a genuine and continuing spousal relationship prior to the cessation of that relationship, which was a prerequisite for considering the family violence claim.

The Tribunal was required to determine whether the applicant had satisfied the requirement of being the spouse or de facto partner of the sponsor prior to the relationship's breakdown. This involved assessing the credibility of the applicant's claims against adverse information held by the Department, which indicated the sponsor had commenced a relationship with another woman in May 2014, cohabited with her from April 2015, and was engaged to her by August 2015. The Tribunal also had to consider whether the relationship was contrived to achieve a migration outcome.

The Tribunal reasoned that the adverse information, including the sponsor's own statements on a visa application for another woman and his admission of cohabitation and engagement to that woman, strongly suggested the breakdown of his relationship with the applicant. The applicant's concession that the sponsor moved out in May 2015 and did not live in a shared household with her further supported this conclusion. While the applicant's daughter testified to the genuineness of the relationship, she also acknowledged the sponsor's dishonesty and affair. The Tribunal found that the applicant had not established that she was the sponsor's spouse or de facto partner prior to the cessation of their relationship, and therefore, the family violence claim could not be considered.

Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the decision under review, concluding that the applicant had not met the criteria for the Subclass 100 visa.