Singh (Migration)

This matter concerned an application for a Partner (Migrant) (Class BC) visa, subclass 100, by a citizen of Fiji sponsored by an Australian citizen. The applicant had previously been granted a subclass 309 visa and travelled to Australia. The Departmental delegate refused the subclass 100 visa application, finding the relationship between the parties was not genuine and continuing, a decision affirmed by the Migration Review Tribunal (MRT). The Federal Magistrates’ Court subsequently remitted the matter to the MRT due to a breach of procedural fairness concerning the applicant's access to documents. The present decision was made by the MRT following this remittal.

The Migration Review Tribunal was required to determine whether the applicant met the criteria for the grant of the Partner (Migrant) visa, specifically whether the spousal relationship between the applicant and the sponsor was genuine and continuing. This involved considering all the circumstances of the relationship, including financial, household, social aspects, and the nature of the commitment to each other, as outlined in the Migration Regulations 1994. The Tribunal also had to consider the evidence presented by the applicant and the adverse information that had been raised during the Departmental processing and previous Tribunal review.

The Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the visa. It noted that the applicant had been invited to a hearing but, in correspondence, stated he and his partner were not happy to attend another hearing and requested the application be considered based on previous evidence. While the hearing was cancelled, the applicant was later provided with access to the relevant documents. The Tribunal found that, despite the remittal and the provision of documents, the applicant had not provided sufficient convincing evidence to satisfy the criteria for a genuine and continuing spousal relationship. The Tribunal considered the lack of attendance at the hearing, the previous adverse findings by the Department, and the limited evidence provided by the applicant.