Patel (Migration)

The applicant, Mr Patel, sought judicial review of a decision by the Minister to affirm the refusal of his Partner (Temporary) (Class UK) visa, subclass 820. The primary issue before the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia was whether the applicant had established a genuine and continuing relationship with his sponsor, as required for the visa.

The court was required to determine whether the delegate's decision to refuse the visa, based on a lack of evidence demonstrating the ongoing genuine and continuing nature of the relationship, was affected by an error of law. Specifically, the court considered whether the delegate had adequately assessed the evidence provided by the applicant, particularly in light of the circumstances arising from the COVID-19 pandemic which had impacted the couple's ability to demonstrate the usual indicia of a relationship, such as cohabitation and shared finances.

Justice Dougall found that the delegate had not erred in law. The delegate had considered the applicant's explanation for the separation, including the sponsor living with his mother during the pandemic and the applicant returning to his home country to care for his parents. However, the delegate was entitled to conclude that, in the absence of current evidence of household, financial, and social aspects of the relationship, the applicant had not satisfied the onus of proving that the relationship was genuine and continuing. The court noted that the applicant had consented to the decision being made without a hearing, and that the delegate's decision was affirmed.