Nguyen (Migration)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal considered an application for a Prospective Marriage (Temporary) (Class TO) visa, Subclass 300. The primary applicant sought to marry the review applicant, an Australian citizen. The dispute centred on whether the applicants met the criteria for the visa, specifically concerning their genuine intention to marry and to live together as spouses.

The Tribunal was required to determine several legal issues. These included whether, at the time of application, the primary visa applicant intended to marry an eligible person as defined by the Act (cl.300.211). It also had to assess whether the parties genuinely intended to marry and that the marriage would take place within the visa period (cl.300.215(a) and (b)). Furthermore, the Tribunal had to consider whether the parties genuinely intended to live together as spouses at the time of application (cl.300.216) and whether the primary applicant continued to satisfy the visa criteria at the time of the decision (cl.300.221).

The Tribunal found that the review applicant met the eligibility requirements as an Australian citizen. While the parties had provided evidence of an engagement ceremony and a Notice of Intended Marriage, the Tribunal ultimately concluded that the applicants did not satisfy the criteria for the visa. This conclusion was based on an assessment of the evidence presented, which indicated issues with the genuineness of the parties' intention to marry and live together as spouses. The Tribunal noted a lack of evidence of joint finances, inconsistent information regarding wedding plans, and irregular contact between the parties.

Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the Prospective Marriage (Temporary) (Class TO) visa to the first-named applicant. As the primary applicant did not satisfy the criteria, the secondary visa applicant, who applied as a member of the family unit, also failed to meet the requirements for the Subclass 300 visa.