Ragusuloto (Migration)

This matter concerned an application for a Partner (Temporary) (Class UK) visa, Subclass 820. The applicant sought review of a decision concerning their eligibility for the visa. The primary dispute revolved around whether the applicant was the de facto partner of the sponsor at the time of application and, subsequently, whether they were spouses at the time of the decision. The decision was made by Christine Kannis.

The court was required to determine whether the applicant was the de facto partner of the sponsor within the meaning of s.5CB of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) at the time of the visa application, and whether the applicant was the spouse of the sponsor as defined in s.5F of the Act at the time of the decision. These determinations involved assessing the genuineness and continuation of the relationship, considering financial and social aspects, the nature of the household, and the commitment between the parties, as outlined in regulations 1.09A and 1.15A.

The Tribunal considered the definition of a de facto relationship under s.5CB of the Act, which requires a mutual commitment to a shared life to the exclusion of others, a genuine and continuing relationship, cohabitation (or not living separately and apart permanently), and that the couple are not related by family. It also noted that consideration must be given to all circumstances, including financial and social aspects, the nature of the household, and the commitment to each other, as detailed in r.1.09A(3). Similarly, for a spouse relationship under s.5F, the Tribunal considered the requirements of a valid marriage, mutual commitment, genuineness, continuation, and cohabitation, as set out in r.1.15A(3). The Tribunal found that the parties had married on 22 December 2018, and the marriage satisfied the requirements for a valid marriage for the purposes of the Act.

Ultimately, the Tribunal concluded that the matter should be remitted for reconsideration. The application for the Partner (Temporary) (Class UK) visa was remitted with a direction that the applicant met the criteria for a Subclass 820 (Partner) visa under cl.820.211(2), cl.820.221, and reg.2.03A of the Migration Regulations 1994.