Waring (Migration)

[2018] AATA 1933

Waring (Migration) [2018] AATA 1933 (30 April 2018)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

REVIEW APPLICANT:  Mr Frederick Kenneth Waring

VISA APPLICANTS:  Ms Thi Kim Ly Tran
Miss Tran To Nga Nguyen
Miss Thuy Yen Vi Nguyen

CASE NUMBER:  1718758

DIBP REFERENCE(S):  OSF2016039651

MEMBER:Paul Maishman

DATE:30 April 2018

PLACE OF DECISION:  Perth

DECISION:The Tribunal remits the visa application to the Minister for reconsideration, with the direction that the application be taken also to be an application for:

·a Partner (Migrant) (Class BC) visa; and

·a Partner (Provisional) (Class UF) visa

that is made on the day the visa application is remitted to the Minister.

Statement made on 30 April 2018 at 11:59am

CATCHWORDS
Migration – Prospective Marriage (Temporary) (Class TO) visa – Subclass 300 (Prospective Marriage) – Applicant has married the sponsor – Decision remitted with direction

LEGISLATION
Marriage Act 1961 (Cth), s 88E
Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss 12, 65
Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth), r 2.08E, Schedule 2

STATEMENT OF DECISION AND REASONS

APPLICATION FOR REVIEW

1. This is an application for review of decisions made by a delegate of the Minister for Immigration to refuse to grant the visa applicants Prospective Marriage (Temporary) (Class TO) visas under s.65 of the Migration Act 1958 (the Act).

2. The visa applicants applied for the visas on 26 October 2016 on the basis that the first named visa applicant (the primary visa applicant) was the prospective spouse of their sponsor, the review applicant. The delegate refused to grant the visas on 3 August 2017.

3. The review applicant applied to the Tribunal on 21 August 2017 for review of the delegate’s decisions. The Tribunal has been advised that the review applicant and primary visa applicant are now married.

   CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE

4. Where an application has been made for review of a decision to refuse to grant a Prospective Marriage visa, and the visa applicant validly marries the sponsor after that decision was made and notifies the Tribunal of the marriage before the review application has been finally determined, r.2.08E of the Migration Regulations 1994 (the Regulations) requires the Tribunal to remit the visa application to the Minister for reconsideration with the direction that the application be taken also to be an application for a Partner (Migrant) (Class BC) and a Partner (Provisional) (Class UF) visa. This allows the now married applicant to be assessed for a spouse visa rather than a prospective marriage visa.

5. For the purpose of deciding whether a marriage is to be recognised as valid for the purposes of the Act, s.12 of the Act provides that Part VA of the Marriage Act 1961 (the Marriage Act) applies as if s.88E of the Marriage Act were omitted. Subject to certain exceptions not relevant to the present matter, foreign marriages recognised under local civil law in the country where they are solemnized will be recognised in Australia under Part VA of the Marriage Act. The exceptions relate to whether either party was already married, whether the parties were of marriageable age at the time of the marriage, whether the parties are within a prohibited relationship, whether the consent of each party was real consent, and whether the marriage is voidable under the local law.

6. In the present case, the review applicant informed the Tribunal that he and the primary visa applicant were married in Bao Lac City, Lam Dong Province, Vietnam on 25 October 2017. The Tribunal has been provided with evidence of the marriage in the form of a certified true copy of their marriage certificate.

7. On the evidence before it, the Tribunal finds that the applicants applied for Prospective Marriage (Temporary) (Class TO) visas, the Minister refused to grant the visas, and the sponsor applied for review of those decisions in accordance with the Act.

8. The Tribunal is also satisfied that in the period after the delegate’s decisions were made and before the review application was finally determined, the primary visa applicant married the sponsor, the review applicant notified the Tribunal of the marriage, and the marriage is recognised as valid for the purposes of the Act. Therefore, the requirements of r.2.08E(2A) are met and, in accordance with r.2.08E(2B), the application must be remitted to the Minister for reconsideration.

   DECISION

9. The Tribunal remits the visa application to the Minister for reconsideration, with the direction that the application be taken also to be an application for:

   ·a Partner (Migrant) (Class BC) visa; and

   ·a Partner (Provisional) (Class UF) visa

   that is made on the day that the visa application is remitted to the Minister.

   Paul Maishman
   Member