YUAN (Migration)

This matter concerned an application for a Partner (Temporary) (Class UK) visa, Subclass 820. The applicant sought review of a decision concerning their eligibility for the visa. The core of the dispute revolved around whether the applicant and their sponsor were in a genuine and continuing spouse relationship as defined by the Migration Act 1994 (Cth).

The legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the parties met the definition of spouse under section 5F of the Act, specifically whether they were in a married relationship that was valid, involved a mutual commitment to a shared life to the exclusion of others, was genuine and continuing, and whether they lived together or not separately and apart on a permanent basis. The Tribunal was required to consider all circumstances of the relationship, including financial and household aspects, and the nature of their commitment, as outlined in regulation 1.15A(3).

The Tribunal found that the parties were validly married for the purposes of the Act. However, it noted that the applicant's financial contributions were primarily from funds brought from China, and that during the COVID-19 pandemic, the applicant was able to support herself in China without assistance from the sponsor due to travel restrictions. While a joint bank account had existed, it had been scammed and closed, and the applicant was a beneficiary on the sponsor's insurance policy. The Tribunal concluded that the matter should be remitted for reconsideration by the Minister, with a direction that the applicant met the criteria under clauses 820.211 and 820.221 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations.