Philip (Migration)

This matter concerned an appeal by a visa applicant against the decision of the Department of Home Affairs to refuse to grant him a Partner (Temporary) (Class UK) visa. The applicant claimed to be in a de facto relationship with his sponsor, which was evidenced by a Queensland Civil Partnership Certificate registered in May 2017. The dispute arose because the sponsor had twice withdrawn her sponsorship, stating that the relationship had ceased. The applicant maintained that the relationship had not broken down, despite periods of separation and the sponsor living in separate accommodation.

The primary legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the applicant satisfied the criteria for the Partner (Temporary) (Class UK) visa, specifically concerning the genuineness and continuation of his de facto relationship with the sponsor, and whether he had provided false or misleading information in relation to his visa application, thereby failing to meet the criteria under Public Interest Criterion 4020(1)(a). The Tribunal was required to consider all the circumstances of the relationship, including financial, household, social aspects, and the nature of the commitment between the parties, as outlined in regulation 1.09A of the Migration Regulations 1994.

The Tribunal found that the applicant had not satisfied the criteria for the visa. It noted the sponsor's repeated withdrawals of sponsorship and the lack of evidence of reconciliation or continuing sponsorship. Furthermore, the Tribunal concluded that the applicant was not a credible or truthful witness and had provided false or misleading information in his visa application. The Tribunal considered the various factors outlined in regulation 1.09A, including the lack of joint ownership of major assets, the cessation of cohabitation, and the sponsor's assertion that the relationship had ended.

Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the decision of the Department not to grant the visa.