Thomas (Migration)

This matter concerned an application for a Partner (Provisional) (Class UF) visa, Subclass 309. The applicant claimed to be the spouse of the review applicant, an Australian citizen. The core dispute revolved around whether the parties were in a genuine and continuing married relationship as defined by section 5F of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth). The decision was made by Naomi Schmitz, a Member of the Tribunal.

The Tribunal was required to determine whether the applicant met the criteria for a spouse relationship under section 5F of the Act, specifically considering the financial and social aspects of the relationship, the nature of the household, and the commitment to each other, as outlined in regulation 1.15A(3) of the Migration Regulations 1994. This involved assessing whether the parties were married under a marriage valid for the purposes of the Act, shared a mutual commitment to a life together to the exclusion of others, and lived together or not separately and apart on a permanent basis.

The Tribunal found that the parties were validly married, evidenced by a marriage certificate. Regarding the financial aspects, it noted the sponsor's retired status, impecuniosity, and long-term residence in public housing, which explained the lack of joint assets or significant liabilities and the continued use of the sponsor's name for rent and utility payments. The Tribunal accepted that these arrangements were maintained due to government eligibility criteria. The Tribunal concluded that the matter should be remitted for reconsideration, directing that the visa applicant met the criteria under cl 309.211(2) and cl 309.221(1) of Schedule 2 to the Regulations.