Mazboudi (Migration)

This matter concerned an application for a Partner (Temporary) (Class UK) visa by a Lebanese citizen, the applicant, sponsored by an Australian citizen. The core dispute revolved around whether the applicant and sponsor were in a genuine and continuing de facto relationship, as required for the visa. The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) was tasked with determining if the applicant met the criteria for the visa grant.

The legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the applicant and sponsor were in a de facto relationship as defined by section 5CB of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) and regulation 1.09A of the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth). Specifically, the Tribunal had to consider the financial aspects, nature of the household, social aspects, and the nature of the commitment to each other, assessing if these factors collectively demonstrated a mutual commitment to a shared life to the exclusion of all others, and that the relationship was genuine and continuing. The Tribunal also considered whether the parties met the additional criteria for a de facto relationship, including the duration of the relationship and registration.

The Tribunal's reasoning focused on a cumulative assessment of the evidence presented, including documents submitted before and after the hearing. While acknowledging some indicators of a de facto relationship, such as shared finances, living arrangements, and socialising, the Tribunal found these insufficient to establish a genuine and continuing relationship. Concerns were raised about the timeline of events, including the rapid inception of the claimed de facto relationship, its registration, the visa application lodgement, and the parties' Islamic marriage ceremony, leading the Tribunal to view the relationship as potentially contrived for the purpose of maintaining the applicant's residence in Australia. The Tribunal applied the principles outlined in section 5CB(2) and regulation 1.09A, weighing the evidence against the prescribed matters, and concluded that the applicant had not demonstrated a mutual commitment to a shared life to the exclusion of all others.

Ultimately, the Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicant a Partner (Temporary) (Class UK) visa, finding that the applicant did not satisfy the criteria for the visa at the time of application.