Nguyen (Migration)

This matter concerned an application for a Partner (Provisional) (Class UF) visa, Subclass 309. The applicant claimed to be the spouse of the review applicant, an Australian citizen. The central dispute revolved around whether the applicant met the definition of a spouse as required by the Migration Regulations 1994.

The court was required to determine whether the parties were in a genuine and continuing married relationship, as defined by section 5F of the Migration Act 1958. This involved assessing whether they were married to each other under a valid marriage, had a mutual commitment to a shared life as a married couple to the exclusion of all others, and lived together or did not live separately and apart on a permanent basis. In making this assessment, the court had to consider all circumstances of the relationship, including financial and social aspects, the nature of their household, and their commitment to each other, as outlined in regulation 1.15A(3).

The Tribunal found that the parties were validly married for the purposes of the Act. However, regarding the financial aspects of the relationship, the Tribunal noted that the parties lived in different countries and did not share joint bank accounts, legal obligations, or day-to-day household expenses. The sponsor indicated she did not require financial assistance from the applicant, who was described as a "working person." The Tribunal concluded that given these findings, the matter should be remitted for reconsideration.

The Tribunal remitted the application for a Partner (Provisional) (Class UF) visa for reconsideration, with the direction that the visa applicant meets the criteria specified in cl.309.211 and cl.309.221 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations.