Thanphanith (Migration)

This matter concerned an appeal against decisions not to grant Partner (Temporary) (Class UK) visas (Subclass 820) to two applicants. The primary dispute revolved around whether the first applicant was wholly or substantially reliant on the primary visa applicant or sponsor for food, shelter, and clothing at the time of the decision or for a substantial period immediately before it. The second applicant, who was married to an Australian citizen and living with him and their children, was also a party to the review.

The Tribunal was required to determine if the first applicant met the dependency requirements for the visa. Additionally, the Tribunal considered the circumstances of the second applicant, specifically whether there were compelling reasons for her presence in Australia due to her Australian citizen husband and children, and whether she could seek ministerial intervention.

The Tribunal's reasoning focused on the evidence presented regarding the first applicant's financial independence. Despite claims from the applicants' representative and the second applicant that the first applicant was not working and was dependent, the Tribunal noted inconsistencies and a lack of clear evidence to support this. The Tribunal highlighted that a significant portion of funds in the first applicant's bank account came from her own savings and cash deposits, rather than solely from the primary visa applicant. While acknowledging strong compassionate circumstances and potential unfairness arising from the application of the s.48 bar to the second applicant, the Tribunal concluded that the first applicant had not demonstrated the required level of dependency.

Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the decisions not to grant the Partner (Temporary) (Class UK) visas. However, the Tribunal noted that it was open to the second applicant to make her own request for ministerial intervention.