Nassar v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs

This matter concerned an application for a Partner Visa by Mr Nassar, a citizen of Egypt, who married an Australian citizen in 2011. After being granted a temporary partner visa in 2014, Mr Nassar applied for the permanent visa in 2016. The Department of Immigration subsequently invited Mr Nassar to comment on adverse information, including inconsistencies regarding his sponsor's marital status and address, and his own marital status. Despite being granted an extension, Mr Nassar failed to provide all requested documentation within the extended timeframe, leading to the refusal of his Partner Visa application by a delegate of the Minister. Mr Nassar sought review of this decision before the Administrative Appeals Tribunal.

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal was required to determine whether Mr Nassar and his sponsor were in a spousal relationship for the purposes of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth) and the *Migration Regulations 1958* (Cth). This involved assessing the genuineness and continuing nature of their relationship, considering various aspects including financial interdependence, the nature of their household, social interaction, and mutual commitment. The Tribunal also had to consider inconsistencies in the evidence provided by Mr Nassar and his sponsor, and whether Mr Nassar's explanation for these inconsistencies, namely a medical condition affecting his memory, was credible.

The Tribunal found that the evidence presented by Mr Nassar and his sponsor lacked credibility and contained inconsistencies. It did not accept the explanation of a memory impairment. In assessing the relationship, the Tribunal noted a lack of documentary evidence regarding financial aspects, and observed that the couple lived in separate houses, which it considered contrary to expectations for a genuine spousal relationship. Furthermore, the Tribunal found little evidence of family support or Mr Nassar caring for his sponsor's children, and noted that the couple travelled separately. The Tribunal was not satisfied that the parties represented themselves as being in a committed spousal relationship or were regarded as such by others, nor that they were mutually committed. Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the delegate's decision, finding that Mr Nassar and his sponsor were not in a spousal relationship.