Markow (Migration)

This matter concerned an application for a Partner (Provisional) (Class UF) visa, specifically a Subclass 309 (Spouse (Provisional)) visa. The applicant, a citizen of the United Kingdom, claimed to be in a de facto relationship with an Australian citizen sponsor. The core dispute revolved around whether the parties met the criteria for a genuine and continuing de facto relationship as defined by the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth) and its associated Regulations. The decision was made by Joseph Francis, a Member of the Tribunal.

The Tribunal was required to determine whether the visa applicant was the spouse or de facto partner of the sponsor at the time the visa application was made, and whether they continued to be so at the time of the decision. This involved assessing whether the parties met the definition of a de facto relationship under section 5CB of the 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. The Tribunal also had to consider all the circumstances of the relationship, including financial, social, and household aspects, as outlined in regulation 1.09A(3) of the *Migration Regulations 1994* (Cth).

The Tribunal reasoned that while the parties were not married at the relevant times, they might satisfy the criteria for a de facto relationship. The assessment of a de facto relationship requires consideration of all aspects, including financial arrangements, the nature of the household, and the commitment to each other, as mandated by regulation 1.09A(3). The Tribunal noted that statutory declarations had been provided detailing the progression of the relationship. However, the provided text indicates that the Tribunal concluded that the matter should be remitted for reconsideration, implying that further assessment of the evidence against the regulatory criteria was necessary.

Consequently, the Tribunal remitted the application for a Partner (Provisional) (Class UF) visa for reconsideration. The direction was that the visa applicant met specific criteria, namely cl.309.211(2) and r.2.03A of the Regulations, indicating that the remittal was for the Minister to consider the remaining criteria for the visa.