Yang (Migration)

This matter concerned an application for a Partner (Temporary) (Class UK) visa, Subclass 820, by a Chinese national and her daughter, sponsored by an Australian citizen. The primary applicant and the sponsor had met in the sponsor's home village in China, commenced a relationship, and subsequently married. The applicant had visited Australia on visitor visas before lodging her partner visa application. The Tribunal was required to determine whether the parties were in a genuine and continuing relationship with a shared commitment to a shared life as a married couple, as required by the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth) and associated regulations.

The legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the parties met the criteria for a spouse relationship under section 5F of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth). This involved assessing if they were validly married, had a mutual commitment to a shared life as a married couple to the exclusion of all others, if their relationship was genuine and continuing, and if they lived together or not separately and apart on a permanent basis. The Tribunal was directed to consider all circumstances of the relationship, including financial and social aspects, and the nature of their household, as outlined in regulation 1.15A(3).

The Tribunal found that the parties were validly married, evidenced by a marriage certificate and photographs of their wedding and related events. It also considered the financial aspects of their relationship, noting they had purchased a home together with a joint mortgage, and that the applicant had contributed to the household finances despite working in a less senior role than in China due to language barriers. The Tribunal concluded that the first named applicant met the criteria under clauses 820.211(2)(a) and 820.221 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations. Consequently, the secondary applicant, as a member of the family unit, met the requirements of clause 820.321.

The Tribunal remitted the applications for Partner (Temporary) (Class UK) visas to the Minister for reconsideration, with a direction that the first named applicant met the specified criteria for a Subclass 820 visa. This meant the secondary applicant also met the requirements as a dependent.