Salise (Migration)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal considered an application for a Partner (Temporary) (Class TU) visa, Subclass 820 (Spouse), made by the first named applicant, with the second named applicant as a secondary applicant. The core dispute concerned whether the applicants had established a genuine and continuing relationship, as required by the relevant migration regulations.

The Tribunal was tasked with determining whether the evidence presented sufficiently demonstrated that the applicants met the criteria for a Subclass 820 visa, specifically concerning the genuineness and continuation of their relationship, and whether the secondary applicant met the associated criteria. A key factual issue was the absence of a sponsorship form, which the applicant claimed was due to technical difficulties during the application process.

In its reasoning, the Tribunal found that the evidence, including details of the couple's meeting, the progression of their relationship, previous visits on tourist visas, their marriage, a joint bank account, shared expenses and purchases, and household activities, was extensive, consistent, and credible. The Tribunal accepted the applicant's explanation regarding the missing sponsorship form, noting departmental policy that such a form need not be lodged at the time of application. Based on this assessment, the Tribunal concluded that the criteria for the visa were met.

Consequently, the Tribunal remitted the application for reconsideration with a direction that the first named applicant meets the specified criteria under clauses 820.211(2) and 820.221(1)(a) of Schedule 2 to the Regulations. As a result, the secondary applicant was also found to satisfy the requirements for the visa grant under clause 820.321(a) of Schedule 2 to the Regulations.