Zheng (Migration)

This matter concerned a Partner (Provisional) (Class UF) visa application lodged by the applicant, sponsored by Mr Zheng. The central dispute before the Tribunal was whether the applicant was the spouse or de facto partner of the sponsor, as defined by the relevant sections of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth). The applicant had a history of multiple marriages, and the sponsor also had previous marriages. The applicant had entered Australia on a tourist visa and subsequently lodged several partner visa applications, with the current application being under review after a previous refusal.

The legal issues before the Tribunal were twofold: first, whether the parties were validly married for the purposes of the Act, and second, whether the visa applicant was the spouse of an eligible citizen. The validity of the marriage was complicated by evidence suggesting the sponsor had failed to disclose a prior marriage before entering Australia, although medical reports indicated potential memory issues. The Tribunal also had to consider the nature of the parties' commitment to each other, examining financial, household, and social aspects of their relationship, as well as the degree of companionship and emotional support they provided.

The Tribunal found that the parties were validly married on 23 September 2012, accepting this marriage as valid for the purposes of the Act, despite challenges regarding the sponsor's undisclosed prior marriage. However, the Tribunal did not accept that the parties provided mutual emotional support or viewed their relationship as long-term. This conclusion was based on inconsistent information provided by the parties regarding their financial matters and living arrangements, and the apparent lack of timely disclosure of their relationship to Centrelink. The Tribunal placed no weight on a psychologist's report concerning the sponsor's health, as its reliability had been challenged, and the sponsor appeared alert and competent during the hearing.

Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the visa applicant a Partner (Provisional) (Class UF) visa, finding that the applicant did not satisfy the criteria for its grant.