Wilson (Migration)

This matter concerned an appeal to the Tribunal regarding a Partner (Provisional) (Class UF) visa, Subclass 309. The review applicant sought to establish a genuine and continuing relationship with the applicant, which is a criterion for the visa. The Tribunal was required to consider various aspects of the relationship, including financial pooling, household arrangements, social recognition, and the nature of the commitment between the parties.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the relationship between the applicant and the review applicant was genuine and continuing, and whether they had a mutual commitment to a shared life together to the exclusion of all others, intending to live together permanently. This involved assessing the evidence presented in light of the criteria set out in section 5F(2) of the Migration Act 1958 and regulation 1.15A of the Migration Regulations 1994, which detail the financial, household, social, and commitment aspects of a relationship. A specific point of contention was the living arrangements of the applicant's child with her biological father, which the Tribunal needed to reconcile with the claimed genuine relationship.

The Tribunal reasoned that the cumulative evidence, including the applicant's explanation regarding her child's schooling and the improved circumstances of the child's father, satisfied the requirements of section 5F(2). It found that the relationship exhibited a mutual commitment to a shared life together, was genuine and continuing, and that the parties intended to live together long-term. The Tribunal accepted the explanation for the child's living arrangements, concluding that it did not detract from the genuineness of the relationship.

Consequently, the Tribunal remitted the applications for the Partner (Provisional) (Class UF) visas for reconsideration by the Minister. The Tribunal directed that the first named visa applicant met the criteria specified in cl.309.211 and cl.309.221 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations.