Nguyen (Migration)

This matter concerned an application for a Partner (Provisional) (Class UF) visa, subclass 309, made by a visa applicant who claimed to be the spouse of an Australian citizen. The core dispute before the Tribunal was whether the parties were in a genuine spousal relationship, as required by the Migration Regulations 1994. The decision was made by Justin Meyer.

The Tribunal was required to determine whether the parties met the criteria for a spouse relationship under section 5F of the Migration Act 1958 and regulation 1.15A of the Migration Regulations 1994. This involved assessing whether the parties were married to each other under a marriage valid for the purposes of the Act, whether there was a mutual commitment to a shared life to the exclusion of others, whether the relationship was genuine and continuing, and whether they lived together or not separately and apart on a permanent basis. The assessment of these matters necessitated consideration of the financial and social aspects of the relationship, the nature of their household, and their commitment to each other.

The Tribunal found that the parties had provided a marriage certificate indicating a valid marriage under Australian law. Furthermore, evidence was presented regarding the financial aspects of their relationship, including a joint bank account and the operation of a joint business, a Vietnamese restaurant, which they stated had commenced in 2016 and represented a complete pooling of their finances. The parties also submitted photographic evidence of themselves in front of their business and documentation of business transactions. The Tribunal concluded that, based on the evidence presented, the parties met the requirements of clauses 309.211 and 309.221 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations.

Consequently, the Tribunal remitted the application for the Partner (Provisional) (Class UF) visa for reconsideration by the Minister, with a direction that the visa applicant met the specified criteria.