Taha (Migration)

This matter concerned an application for review of a decision not to grant Prospective Marriage (Temporary) (Class TO) visas (subclass 300). The review applicant, who was the prospective spouse of the visa applicant, failed to attend a hearing before the Tribunal. The review applicant's representative had previously advised the Tribunal that the relationship between the parties had broken down and that the review applicant no longer wished to proceed with the review. The review applicant later confirmed this breakdown in the relationship.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the visa applicant continued to satisfy the criteria for the grant of the visa at the time of the decision. Specifically, the Tribunal was required to determine if the parties genuinely intended to live together as spouses, as required by clause 300.221 of the Migration Regulations 1994. A further issue was whether the secondary applicant, as a member of the family unit, met the criteria for a visa grant under clause 300.321.

The Tribunal, constituted by Glynis Bartley, Member, accepted the information that the relationship between the parties had broken down. Given this breakdown, the Tribunal was not satisfied that the parties genuinely intended to live together as spouses. Consequently, the Tribunal found that the visa applicant did not meet the criteria in clause 300.221 at the time of the decision. As the primary visa applicant did not satisfy the criteria, the Tribunal also found that the secondary applicant, who must be a member of the family unit of a person satisfying the primary criteria, did not meet the requirements of clause 300.321.

The Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the Prospective Marriage (Temporary) (Class TO) visas to the visa applicant and the secondary applicant.