Vo (Migration)

This matter concerned a review applicant seeking a Prospective Marriage (Temporary) (Class TO) visa, subclass 300. The core dispute revolved around whether the applicant and their partner genuinely intended to marry within the visa period and live together as spouses. The original intended marriage date had passed, and a new date was filed shortly before the hearing. The decision under review affirmed the refusal of the visa.

The legal issues before the court were whether the applicants had demonstrated a genuine intention to marry within the visa period and whether their relationship was genuine, considering the limited evidence of their commitment while living in different countries. The court was required to assess significant inconsistencies in the evidence presented, the timing of the relationship's commencement in relation to the applicant's previous marriage, and the applicant's history of domestic violence and dishonesty.

The court found significant inconsistencies in the evidence, leading to the conclusion that the relationship was not genuine. Despite claims of multiple visits to Vietnam, there was a lack of corroborating documentary evidence such as flight bookings, bank statements, or stamped passports. The court was particularly puzzled by the delay in marriage, given the nearly four-year period since the original intended marriage date and the applicant's claims of visiting Vietnam multiple times. Explanations for the delay, including the COVID-19 pandemic and plans for an Australian wedding celebration, were found unconvincing and contradictory. The court also noted the applicant's strained relationship with his daughters and his desire to keep them uninformed about his new wife, which further cast doubt on the genuineness of the relationship.

Consequently, the court affirmed the decision not to grant the Prospective Marriage (Temporary) (Class TO) visa, finding that the applicants did not satisfy the criteria for its grant.