Pham v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs

This matter concerned an application for judicial review of a decision by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. The applicant, Hong, sought review of the Tribunal's decision to affirm the refusal of a Partner (Provisional) (Class UF) visa for the visa applicant, Tu. The core of the dispute revolved around whether Hong and Tu were in a genuine and continuing de facto relationship, as required for the visa to be granted.

The legal issues before the Court were whether the Tribunal had acted unreasonably in its assessment of the evidence and whether certain matters considered by the Tribunal were factually irrelevant to the assessment of the de facto relationship. Specifically, the applicant contended that the Tribunal's consideration of the needs of Tu's children if they were to come to Australia was irrelevant. The Court was also required to consider the inherent difficulties in assessing the genuineness and continuing nature of relationships, particularly in the context of the statutory criteria for a de facto relationship under the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth) and *Migration Regulations 1994* (Cth).

Humphreys J found that the Tribunal's consideration of the children's needs was relevant to the question of whether the parties could live together as a family unit in Australia, which in turn bore on the credibility of their claim to be spouses. The Court acknowledged that assessing de facto relationships is inherently complex, with human relationships being varied and intricate. While the Act sets out specific criteria, the Court noted that genuine relationships can take many forms. The Tribunal had found the applicants' account of the inception of their relationship lacked detail, spontaneity, and authenticity, and had difficulty accepting their transition to a same-sex relationship. The Court concluded that reasonable minds could differ on the Tribunal's reasoning regarding the relevance of the children's needs, and therefore, it was not legally unreasonable.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.