Our clients, an Australian citizen and their partner from Southeast Asia, had their Subclass 820 partner visa application refused by the Department of Home Affairs. The delegate concluded that the relationship was not genuine and continuing, citing perceived inconsistencies in the couple's statutory declarations and what the delegate described as insufficient evidence of financial interdependence. The couple had been in a relationship for over three years at the time of the refusal, had been living together for two years, and had a joint lease and shared household expenses. However, they maintained separate bank accounts (a common arrangement) and the sponsoring partner worked fly-in fly-out (FIFO), which the delegate viewed as undermining the genuineness of the relationship. The refusal was devastating for the couple, who were expecting their first child at the time of the decision.

Partner visa refusals based on relationship genuineness are among the most difficult to overturn because they involve subjective assessments of personal relationships. The delegate's decision record ran to 18 pages and identified multiple specific concerns that needed to be individually addressed. Key challenges included: - The delegate had placed significant weight on minor inconsistencies in dates mentioned in statutory declarations, which were simple memory errors rather than fabrications. - The FIFO work arrangement was viewed negatively despite being extremely common in Australia. - The couple's financial arrangements (separate bank accounts with shared expenses) were characterised as indicating a lack of genuine commitment. - The delegate had conducted an interview with the applicant and noted perceived hesitancy in some answers, which was in fact due to language barriers and nervousness.

We prepared a comprehensive appeal strategy: 1. We obtained a detailed relationship chronology with supporting evidence for every significant event, including photographs, travel records, communication logs, and third-party statements. 2. We commissioned an expert report from a registered migration agent with experience in relationship assessments, who reviewed the evidence and provided an independent opinion on the genuineness of the relationship. 3. We prepared detailed submissions addressing each of the delegate's concerns, explaining the inconsistencies in the statutory declarations and providing context for the financial and living arrangements. 4. We obtained statements from 12 witnesses — family members, friends, colleagues, and neighbours — who attested to the genuineness of the relationship from their personal observations. 5. We presented evidence of the couple's pregnancy and preparations for their child, including medical records and evidence of joint purchases for the baby. 6. We requested an oral hearing at the ART so that both partners could give evidence directly and the Tribunal Member could assess their credibility in person.

After a full hearing at which both partners gave oral evidence, the Administrative Review Tribunal set aside the refusal and remitted the application for grant of the Subclass 820 visa. The Tribunal Member found that the relationship was genuine and continuing, and that the delegate had placed excessive weight on minor inconsistencies while failing to give adequate consideration to the substantial body of evidence supporting the relationship. The Tribunal specifically noted that the couple's financial arrangements were entirely reasonable and common in Australian society, and that the FIFO work pattern did not detract from the genuineness of the relationship. The Tribunal also observed that the applicant's demeanour at the hearing was entirely consistent with a person in a genuine relationship. The couple's baby was born shortly after the decision, and the partner visa was subsequently granted. The family is now settled in Australia.

KEY FACTS

Overturned

8 months from refusal to ART decision