Yang (Migration)

This matter concerned an appeal before the Tribunal regarding a Prospective Marriage (Temporary) (Class TO) visa, Subclass 300. The visa applicant, Mr Yablongthor, a national of Laos, sought to enter Australia to marry Ms Yang, an Australian citizen. The core of the dispute revolved around whether the parties possessed a genuine intention to marry each other and a genuine intention to live together as spouses, both at the time of the visa application and at the time of the Tribunal's decision.

The Tribunal was required to determine if the requirements of clauses 300.215, 300.216, and 300.221 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations were met. These clauses necessitate satisfaction that the parties have a genuine intention to marry within the visa period and a genuine intention to live together as spouses. The Tribunal considered documentary and oral evidence presented by both parties.

In its reasoning, the Tribunal applied the principles from *Jayasinghe v MIMA* [2006] FCA 1700, which allows for later events to be considered as evidence of prior facts. The Tribunal noted that the visa applicant initially provided limited documentary evidence to the Department but later submitted more extensive material to the Tribunal. After reviewing substantial and compelling documentary evidence, including notices of intended marriage, financial records, travel documents, and third-party statements, alongside oral testimony, the Tribunal was satisfied that the parties had a genuine intention to marry within the visa period and a genuine intention to live together as spouses.

Consequently, the Tribunal remitted the application for the Prospective Marriage (Temporary) (Class TO) visa for reconsideration by the Minister, with a direction that the visa applicant met the criteria under clauses 300.215, 300.216, and 300.221 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations.