Rana v Minister for Immigration

The applicant, an Indian citizen, sought judicial review of a decision by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) that affirmed the refusal of his Partner (Temporary) (Class UK) visa application. The visa required the applicant to be the spouse or de facto partner of the sponsor at the time of application and at the time of decision. The applicant claimed to be the spouse, relying on the definition of "spouse" in section 5F of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth), which requires a valid marriage, a mutual commitment to a shared life, a genuine and continuing relationship, and cohabitation or not living separately on a permanent basis. The AAT had found that while the marriage was valid, the applicant did not satisfy the other criteria for being a spouse.

The Federal Circuit Court was required to determine whether the AAT erred in law in its assessment of the applicant's spousal relationship. Specifically, the court needed to consider whether the AAT correctly applied the definition of "spouse" under section 5F of the *Migration Act* and the relevant factors outlined in regulation 1.15A, and whether the applicant's assertion that the AAT ignored his evidence disclosed an error of law. The court also considered whether the applicant's grounds of review amounted to an impermissible challenge to the AAT's factual findings rather than a review of legal error.

Emmett J found that the applicant's claim that the AAT ignored his evidence was a bare assertion without particulars, and therefore did not disclose an error of law. The court accepted the Minister's submissions that the AAT had correctly applied the definition of spouse by considering the financial, household, social, and commitment aspects of the relationship as set out in regulation 1.15A. The AAT's findings that the financial aspects were not consistent with a genuine and continuing relationship, that the parties did not live together as claimed, that social aspects were not persuasive, and that there was little independent evidence of commitment, were all factual findings that did not disclose an error of law. The court concluded that the AAT did not apply the wrong legal test and that the applicant's grounds of review were based on a disagreement with the AAT's factual findings, which constituted an impermissible merits review.

The application was dismissed.