Turan (Migration)

This matter concerned an appeal by the applicant against a decision of the Tribunal which affirmed the refusal of her Prospective Marriage (Temporary) (Class TO) visa (subclass 300). The applicant, a citizen of Syria, claimed to have met the sponsor, an Australian citizen, in 2016 through his aunt and met in person for the first time in June 2018, becoming engaged shortly thereafter. The sponsor returned to Australia and had not seen the applicant since that date.

The primary legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the parties genuinely intended to marry, whether the marriage was intended to take place within the visa period, and crucially, whether the parties genuinely intended to live together as spouses at the time of the application. The Tribunal considered the requirements of clauses 300.215 and 300.216 of the Migration Regulations 1994, which stipulate the need for a genuine intention to marry and to live together as spouses. The definition of "spouse" under section 5F of the Migration Act 1958, requiring a mutual commitment to a shared life to the exclusion of all others and cohabitation, was also a key consideration.

The Tribunal found that the parties did have a genuine intention to marry and intended to do so within the visa period, as evidenced by a lapsed Notice of Intended Marriage. However, the Tribunal was not satisfied that the parties genuinely intended to live together as spouses at the time of the application. This conclusion was based on a lack of evidence regarding suitable accommodation plans, limited evidence of social interaction, and the fact that the parties had not seen each other since the sponsor's return to Australia. The Tribunal affirmed the decision under review.