Sirisee (Migration)

This matter concerned an application for a Student (Temporary) (Class TU) visa, specifically Subclass 572 (Vocational Education and Training Sector). The applicant sought to be recognised as a member of the family unit of a primary visa holder. The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) was required to determine whether the applicant had provided sufficient evidence to establish a genuine and continuing de facto relationship with Lavanasakol Sirikanya, as required by the relevant visa criteria.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicant had satisfied the requirements of cl.572.322, which necessitates proof of being a member of the family unit of a primary person who meets specific criteria. This involved assessing the evidence presented to demonstrate a genuine and continuing de facto relationship, including indicators of shared financial obligations, living arrangements, and mutual commitment. The Tribunal also considered whether the applicant met the criteria for alternative Subclass TU visas, such as Subclass 576 or Subclass 580, which were found not to be applicable.

The Tribunal reasoned that the documentation provided by the applicant was insufficient to establish a de facto relationship. Statements from the applicant and Lavanasakol Sirikanya lacked material details regarding the commencement and nature of their relationship, and failed to address common indicators of a de facto partnership, such as shared financial obligations or joint legal responsibilities. While a joint bank account was opened and individual bank statements were provided, these covered a short period and did not, in themselves, demonstrate a genuine and continuing relationship. The Overseas Student Health Cover was for single status, and photographs, while showing social interaction, did not prove a de facto relationship. The Tribunal concluded that the evidence did not demonstrate the mutual commitment and genuine nature of the relationship required by the regulations.

Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicant a Student (Temporary) (Class TU) visa, finding that the applicant had failed to meet the criteria for being a member of the family unit of a primary visa holder.