Mounajed (Migration)

This matter concerned an application for review by the sponsor of a decision to refuse a Prospective Marriage (Temporary) (Class TO) visa, subclass 300. The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (the Tribunal) was advised that the visa applicant and the sponsor had validly married after the delegate's decision but before the Tribunal's determination. The Tribunal was required to consider the implications of this subsequent marriage on the review application.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the subsequent marriage triggered specific provisions within the *Migration Regulations 1994* (Cth) that mandated the remittal of the application. Specifically, the Tribunal had to determine if the marriage was validly recognised under Australian law, as provided for by Part VA of the *Marriage Act 1961* (Cth), and if the notification of this marriage to the Tribunal met the requirements of regulation 2.08E.

The Tribunal reasoned that regulation 2.08E(2A) of the *Migration Regulations 1994* requires the Tribunal to remit a Prospective Marriage visa application to the Minister for reconsideration if the applicant validly marries the sponsor after the initial decision and before the review is finalised. The Tribunal applied section 12 of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth), which directs that Part VA of the *Marriage Act 1961* applies for the recognition of foreign marriages, subject to certain exceptions not relevant in this instance. As the marriage in Lebanon was recognised under local civil law and evidence of this was provided, the Tribunal found that the requirements of regulation 2.08E(2A) were satisfied.

Consequently, the Tribunal remitted the visa application to the Minister for reconsideration. The direction was that the application should also be treated as an application for a Partner (Migrant) (Class BC) visa and a Partner (Provisional) (Class UF) visa, made on the day of the remittal.