Sarono (Migration)

This matter concerned an application for a Partner (Migrant) (Class BC) visa, Subclass 100. The central dispute was whether the applicant was the de facto partner of his sponsor at the time of the decision. The case was heard by Justin Meyer.

The court was required to determine whether the parties were in a de facto relationship, as defined by section 5CB of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth). This definition requires a mutual commitment to a shared life to the exclusion of all others, a genuine and continuing relationship, cohabitation (or not living separately and apart on a permanent basis), and that the couple are not related by family. In making this determination, the court had to consider all circumstances of the relationship, including financial and social aspects, the nature of the household, and the parties' commitment to each other, as outlined in regulation 1.09A(3) of the Migration Regulations 1994.

The court reasoned that to assess whether the parties were in a de facto relationship, it needed to consider all the evidence relating to the financial, household, social aspects, and the nature of their commitment. The evidence presented included details about the parties' previous relationships, the commencement of their relationship, joint ownership of a motor vehicle, a joint bank account, shared rental and utility expenses, and joint acquisition of land in the Philippines. The court noted that each specific matter in regulation 1.09A(3) must be answered, referencing the authority of *He v MIBP* [2017] FCAFC 206.

Ultimately, the Tribunal remitted the application for reconsideration. The direction was that the applicant met the criteria for a Subclass 100 (Partner) visa, specifically referencing clause 100.221 of Schedule 2 and regulation 2.03A of the Migration Regulations 1994. This indicated that the decision was made without hearing all necessary evidence or that a crucial aspect of the assessment had not been adequately addressed.