OZOEMENA (Migration)

This matter concerned an application for a Partner (Temporary) (Class UK) visa, Subclass 820 (Spouse), made by the applicant. The core dispute revolved around whether the applicant and the sponsor were in a genuine spousal relationship as defined by the Migration Act 1994 (Cth). The decision was made by Russell Matheson, a Member of the Tribunal.

The Tribunal was required to determine if the applicant was the spouse of the sponsor, as defined by section 5F of the Act. This involved assessing the genuineness of their relationship, particularly in light of significant inconsistencies in the evidence provided by the applicant and the sponsor concerning their financial arrangements and living arrangements. The Tribunal also had to consider the applicant's credibility and the accuracy of his evidence, having put new information to him under section 359AA of the Act and invited his response.

The Tribunal's reasoning focused on the inconsistencies raised under section 359AA. Specifically, there were discrepancies regarding the deposit of the sponsor's Centrelink payments and the applicant's evidence about their living arrangements in Canberra. The applicant provided explanations for these inconsistencies, including a hacking incident affecting their bank accounts and his mother's illness requiring him to divide his time between Canberra and Sydney. The Tribunal considered these explanations in the context of the overall assessment of the relationship's genuineness, which, according to Regulation 1.15A, requires consideration of financial, household, social, and commitment aspects.

Ultimately, the Tribunal decided to remit the application for reconsideration. The direction was that the applicant met the criteria for a Subclass 820 visa under clauses 820.211 and 820.221 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations, indicating that the remaining criteria were to be assessed by the Minister.