Naidu (Migration)

This matter concerned an appeal to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal by an applicant for a Partner (Migrant) (Class BC) visa, Subclass 100 (Spouse). The applicant's sponsor had withdrawn their sponsorship, stating the relationship had broken down. The applicant subsequently claimed to have suffered family violence perpetrated by the sponsor. The Tribunal was required to consider this claim in light of the applicant's visa application.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicant had established that she had suffered family violence as defined by the relevant migration regulations. This involved assessing the evidentiary requirements for such a claim, particularly in circumstances where the relationship had ceased and the sponsor was neither deceased nor the applicant had children with the sponsor. The Tribunal also had to determine the weight to be given to independent expert opinions regarding the family violence claim.

The Tribunal considered evidence that the applicant had previously been referred to an independent expert by the Department, who found that the applicant had not suffered relevant family violence. While the applicant later provided an Application and Summons for an Intervention Order and a Final Intervention Order, the Tribunal noted the applicant's own statement within the application that the intervention order had been refused by the court. Consequently, the Tribunal found it could not rely on a judicially determined claim of family violence. Although the Tribunal sought a second independent expert opinion, it was bound by law to take as correct the opinion of the expert regarding whether family violence had been suffered. As the applicant did not meet this essential criterion for the visa, the Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the visa.