Pangpum (Migration)

This matter concerned an application for a Partner (Temporary) (Class UK) visa, subclass 820, made by a citizen of Thailand. The applicant sought review of a decision by the Department of Immigration and Border Protection to refuse the visa. The sponsor was an Australian citizen. The primary issue was whether the applicant and sponsor were in a de facto relationship at the time of the application and at the time of review, and whether they met the legislative requirements for the visa, including the minimum relationship duration.

The court was required to determine if the applicant was the de facto partner of the sponsor, as defined by section 5CB of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth) and relevant regulations. This involved assessing whether the parties met the criteria for a de facto relationship, considering financial, social, household, and commitment aspects, as outlined in regulation 1.09A(3) of the *Migration Regulations 1994* (Cth). Additionally, the court had to consider whether the applicant met the prescribed minimum length of relationship requirement under regulation 2.03A.

The Tribunal noted a lack of evidence presented to the original delegate, which led to the refusal. However, the Tribunal considered extensive additional documentary evidence and oral evidence not available to the delegate. Applying the principles from *Jayasinghe v MIMA* [2006] FCA 1700, the Tribunal considered later events that logically indicated prior facts. After reviewing all the evidence, the Tribunal found that the applicant met the criteria for the subclass 820 visa.

The Tribunal remitted the application for a Partner (Temporary) (Class UK) visa, subclass 820, with a direction that the applicant met the criteria specified in cl.820.211, cl.820.221 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations, and r.2.03A.