Radings (Migration)

[2024] AATA 2840

Radings (Migration) [2024] AATA 2840 (30 July 2024)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

REVIEW APPLICANT:  Ms Wendy Lynne Radings

VISA APPLICANT:  Mr Naresh Raju Yadav

CASE NUMBER:  2205573

HOME AFFAIRS REFERENCE(S):          BCC2020/1643649

MEMBER:Justine Clarke

DATE:30 July 2024

PLACE OF DECISION:  Melbourne

DECISION:The Tribunal remits the visa application to the Minister for reconsideration, with the direction that the application be taken also to be an application for:

·a Partner (Migrant) (Class BC) visa; and

·a Partner (Provisional) (Class UF) visa

that is made on the day the visa application is remitted to the Minister.

Statement made on 30 July 2024 at 12:36pm

CATCHWORDS

MIGRATION – Prospective Marriage (Temporary) (Class TO) visa – Subclass 300 (Prospective Marriage) – parties married since the primary decision – valid marriage – taken to be an application for a permanent Partner visa – decision under review remitted          

LEGISLATION

Marriage Act 1961, s 88
Migration Act 1958, ss 12, 65
Migration Regulations 1994, r 2.08

STATEMENT OF DECISION AND REASONS

APPLICATION FOR REVIEW

1. This is an application for review of a decision made on 18 February 2022 by a delegate of the Minister for Home Affairs to refuse to grant the visa applicant a Prospective Marriage (Temporary) (Class TO) visa under s 65 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (the Act).

2. On 29 May 2020, the visa applicant applied for the visa as the prospective spouse of their sponsor, the review applicant.

3. On 14 April 2022, the review applicant applied to the Tribunal for review of the delegate’s decision.

4. The Tribunal has been advised that the parties are now married.

   CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE

5. Where an application has been made for review of a decision to refuse to grant a Prospective Marriage visa, and the visa applicant validly marries the sponsor after that decision was made and notifies the Tribunal of the marriage before the review application has been finally determined, reg 2.08E of the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth) (the Regulations) requires the Tribunal to remit the visa application to the Minister for reconsideration with the direction that the application be taken also to be an application for a Partner (Migrant) (Class BC) and a Partner (Provisional) (Class UF) visa. This allows the now married applicant to be assessed for a spouse visa rather than a prospective marriage visa.

6. For the purpose of deciding whether a marriage is to be recognised as valid for the purposes of the Act, s 12 of the Act provides that Part VA of the Marriage Act 1961 (Cth) (the Marriage Act) applies as if s 88E of the Marriage Act were omitted. Subject to certain exceptions not relevant to the present matter, foreign marriages recognised under local civil law in the country where they are solemnized will be recognised in Australia under Part VA of the Marriage Act. The exceptions relate to whether either party was already married, whether the parties were of marriageable age at the time of the marriage, whether the parties are within a prohibited relationship, whether the consent of each party was real consent, and whether the marriage is voidable under the local law.

7. In the present case, the review applicant informed the Tribunal that she and the visa applicant were married. The Tribunal has been provided with evidence of the marriage in the form of a marriage certificate evidencing the parties’ marriage in India on 22 June 2024.

8. On the evidence before it, the Tribunal finds that the visa applicant applied for a Prospective Marriage (Temporary) (Class TO) visa, the Minister refused to grant the visa, and the sponsor of the visa applicant applied for review of that decision in accordance with the Act.

9. The Tribunal is also satisfied that in the period after the delegate’s decision was made and before the review application was finally determined the visa applicant married the prospective spouse, the review applicant notified the Tribunal of the marriage, and the marriage is recognised as valid for the purposes of the Act. Therefore, the requirements of reg 2.08E(2A) are satisfied, and in accordance with reg 2.08E(2B) the application must be remitted to the Minister for reconsideration.

   DECISION

10. The Tribunal remits the visa application to the Minister for reconsideration, with the direction that the application be taken also to be an application for:

    ·a Partner (Migrant) (Class BC) visa; and

    ·a Partner (Provisional) (Class UF) visa

    that is made on the day that the visa application is remitted to the Minister.

    Justine Clarke
    Member