Tribunal: Senior Member K Raif
Primary government decision
A delegate of the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection refused to grant a permanent Partner visa to the applicant in 2017, as the delegate was not satisfied that the applicant was the spouse of the sponsor.
The Tribunal affirmed the decision of the Minister’s delegate not to grant the applicant a partner visa as it was not satisfied that the applicant and sponsor had a mutual commitment to a shared life as husband and wife to the exclusion of all others and therefore did not meet a criterion for the visa that the applicant is the spouse of the sponsor
The applicant is a Jordanian citizen who married the sponsor in March 2013. The applicant entered Australia on a Prospective Marriage visa in January 2013 and was granted a temporary partner visa in May 2013.
The applicant originally appeared before the Tribunal in August 2018 after his application for a permanent partner visa was refused. The Tribunal, which was differently constituted, affirmed the decision not to grant a visa. The applicant sought judicial review in the Federal Court, and the matter was remitted by the Court back to the Tribunal for reconsideration. p>
The applicant and sponsor provided evidence of their joint household, such as joint bank account details and correspondence. However, they provided inconsistent answers to questions about their daily life. In addition, when asked, the applicant could not provide detailed answers about his stepson’s hobbies, friends or studies. In the Tribunal’s view, if the applicant and sponsor had established a joint household, they would be able to provide more consistent answers about their daily life. The applicant also gave very limited evidence about the comfort and emotional support he and the sponsor gave each other. The Tribunal accepted that they did social activities together and represented themselves to others as being in a spousal relationship.
The Tribunal considered all of the evidence about the relationship. It placed weight on the evidence from other people and the social aspects of the relationship and accepted that others believed it to be genuine and committed. It also placed weight on the length of the relationship of ten years and that close family recognised it. However, against that, it considered the inconsistent evidence the applicant and sponsor provided about their life and household. In the Tribunal’s view, if the applicant and sponsor did establish a joint household and had lived together for ten years, they would have better knowledge of each other than what they showed.
Overall, the Tribunal was not satisfied that the applicant and sponsor had a mutual commitment to a shared life as husband and wife to the exclusion of all others, so it was not satisfied that the applicant was the spouse of the sponsor.
Read the full decision on AustLII.
Affirm If the Tribunal affirms a decision, the original decision is not changed.
Differently constituted A different Tribunal member heard the original case before the Tribunal.
Every case before the AAT is determined on its individual facts. These summaries may not include all information considered by the AAT and do not constitute legal advice. You should read the full decision to ensure you understand the basis of our decision.