To (Migration)

Case

[2023] AATA 4327

18 December 2023


Details
AGLC Case Decision Date
To (Migration) [2023] AATA 4327 [2023] AATA 4327 18 December 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

This matter concerned an appeal by a visa applicant against a decision regarding a Partner (Provisional) (Class UF) visa, subclass 309. The review applicant, an Australian permanent resident, and the visa applicant, a citizen of Vietnam, claimed to have met in 2013, formed a relationship in 2015, and commenced living together as a de facto couple in 2017, subsequently registering their relationship in January 2018. The Tribunal was required to determine whether the parties were in a genuine and continuing de facto relationship for the purposes of the visa application.

The court was tasked with determining whether the parties met the criteria for a de facto relationship as defined by section 5CB of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) and Regulation 1.09A of the Migration Regulations 1994. This involved assessing all circumstances of the relationship, including financial aspects, the nature of their household, social interactions, and their commitment to each other, to ascertain if they shared a mutual commitment to a life together to the exclusion of all others, and if the relationship was genuine and continuing.

The Tribunal considered oral and documentary evidence, including statements from the parties and witnesses, and found the parties' evidence regarding their relationship, employment, families, and living arrangements to be generally consistent, with only minor inconsistencies. While noting vagueness regarding the visa applicant's sons' contact with their mother, the Tribunal did not consider this critical. The Tribunal accepted the parties' evidence about meeting, the nature of their relationship, and their living arrangements, supported by witness testimony. Applying the principles from *He v MIBP* [2017] FCAFC 206, the Tribunal considered the various factors outlined in Regulation 1.09A(3).

Ultimately, the Tribunal concluded that the matter should be remitted for reconsideration by the Minister. The Tribunal directed that the visa applicant met the criteria under cl.309.211 and cl.309.221 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations, and reg.2.03A, and that the applications for Partner (Provisional) (Class UF) visas be reconsidered.
Details

Areas of Law

  • Immigration

  • Administrative Law

Legal Concepts

  • Judicial Review

  • Procedural Fairness

  • Natural Justice

  • Statutory Construction

  • Remedies

Actions
Download as PDF Download as Word Document


Cases Citing This Decision

0

Cases Cited

1

Statutory Material Cited

0

He v MIBP [2017] FCAFC 206