In the Federal Court decision of Kareem v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services & Multicultural Affairs  FCA 1016, Bromwich J held that when considering a subclass 309 partner visa applications. (The case dealt with a de facto partner of visa sponsor) The tribunal was NOT allowed to consider the best interest of the affected children or related issues or any hardship that might be occasioned by refusal of visa be that to the visa applicant the sponsor or their children.
The Sponsor, an Australian citizen, is a Nigerian citizen living in Nigeria. The visa applicant applied for the visa the subject of this appeal upon the basis that she was in a de facto relationship with the sponsor, having previously been refused a number of other visas that she had applied for. The Minister’s delegate refused to grant the visa, and the Tribunal principally affirmed that decision upon the basis of not being satisfied that the visa applicant and the sponsor were in an exclusive relationship as required by part of the definition of “de facto partner” in s 5CB of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth)
The sponsor had been in a polygamous relationship with the visa applicant and with another person, Ms Oluwakemi Omotayo. The sponsor did not deny that had been the situation in the past, but his case was that his relationship with Ms Omotayo had ceased, and that his sole relationship was with the visa applicant. The delegate and the Tribunal both recorded three children from the sponsor’s relationship with the visa applicant, and three children from the sponsor’s relationship with Ms Omotayo, with overlapping birth dates, in the period from 1998 to 2011. Neither the delegate nor the Tribunal were satisfied that the relationship between the sponsor and Ms Omotayo had ended, such that neither was satisfied, as required, that the sponsor was in a relationship with the visa applicant to the exclusion of all others. The Tribunal’s decision was also made upon the basis of not being satisfied that the relationship was genuine and continuing.
The primary judge was not satisfied that any jurisdictional error had been established, characterising much of what was advanced by the sponsor as amounting in effect to impermissible merits review.
This article was supplied by our corporate sponsor the leading Immigration Industry Newsletter the Migration Case Law Updates (Be advised a comparable newsletter/service charges almost $500 annual subscription.
Join VISA and get subscription to the Migration Case Law Updates for FREE!
Join VISA to continue reading.