Shi (Migration)

This matter concerned an appeal by an applicant for a Partner (Temporary) (Class UK) visa, subclass 820, against the refusal of her application. The applicant claimed to be the spouse of an Australian citizen. The core dispute revolved around whether the applicant and the sponsor were in a genuine spousal relationship at the time of the visa application and until the applicant left the relationship, and if relevant family violence had occurred. The decision was made by Adrienne Millbank, a Member of the Tribunal.

The Tribunal was required to determine whether the applicant and the sponsor met the criteria for a spouse relationship as defined by section 5F of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth). This involved assessing whether the parties were validly married, whether they had a mutual commitment to a shared life as a married couple to the exclusion of all others, whether the relationship was genuine and continuing, and whether they lived together or not separately and apart on a permanent basis. The Tribunal also had to consider all the circumstances of the relationship, including financial aspects, the nature of the household, social aspects, and the nature of their commitment to each other, as outlined in regulation 1.15A(3) of the Migration Regulations 1994.

The Tribunal found that while the parties were validly married, they failed to demonstrate a genuine and continuing spousal relationship. Evidence regarding financial aspects was lacking; there was no joint ownership of property or assets, no joint liabilities, and no significant pooling of financial resources. The parties had agreed that their respective children would inherit their property, rather than each other. The Tribunal also noted the absence of evidence concerning the social aspects of the relationship and the nature of their commitment to each other. Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the decision to refuse the visa.