Satorre (Migration)

This matter concerned an application for a Partner (Provisional) (Class UF) visa, subclass 309, where the applicant claimed to be the spouse of an Australian citizen. The central dispute revolved around whether the parties were in a genuine and continuing spousal relationship as defined by the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) and the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth) at the time of the visa application and the decision. The Tribunal was required to determine if the relationship met the criteria for a married relationship under section 5F(2) of the Act.

The legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the parties were validly married and, if so, whether they met the other requirements for a spouse relationship. These requirements, as outlined in section 5F(2) of the Act, include a mutual commitment to a shared life as a married couple to the exclusion of all others, the relationship being genuine and continuing, and the couple living together or not living separately and apart on a permanent basis. The Tribunal was directed to consider all circumstances of the relationship, including financial, social, and household aspects, as well as the nature of their commitment to each other, as detailed in regulation 1.15A(3).

The Tribunal found that the parties had provided sufficient evidence to establish that they were validly married in the Philippines on 9 August 2015, satisfying section 5F(2)(a). However, the Tribunal concluded that further consideration was needed regarding the remaining criteria for a spouse relationship, including the genuine and continuing nature of the relationship, the mutual commitment to a shared life, and whether they were living together or not living separately and apart on a permanent basis. The Tribunal considered various forms of evidence, including statements from the applicants, photographs, money orders, social media records, and statements from third parties, to assess these aspects.

Ultimately, the Tribunal determined that the matter should be remitted for reconsideration by the Minister. The direction was that the visa applicant met the criteria under clause 309.211 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations, but the assessment of the other criteria for the Subclass 309 visa required further consideration.