1. At hearing the applicant gave evidence that he and the sponsor did not jointly own any real estate or other major assets, nor did they have any joint liabilities or owe any legal obligation in respect of the other. I accept the applicant's evidence in that regard and I find accordingly.
2. There is little evidence that the applicant and the sponsor pulled their financial resources or shared their day-to-day household expenses. The applicant gave evidence that he was employed during the relationship while the sponsor received Centrelink payments. He said that he and the sponsor opened a joint bank account but never used it.
3. The delegate noted that the applicant had not provided any documents to support his claims that he had the sponsor combined their finances. The applicant gave evidence that he paid a share of the rent in the Keysborough property in which they resided, which he estimated at $600 or $700 per month, and that he also sometimes bought groceries and other items for the sponsor and her children. When asked if he had any documentary evidence of these payments and purchases, he said that he thought he did and he would provide them after the hearing. After the hearing he wrote to the Tribunal stating that the bank had advised him that it could only provide bank statements up to two years old, while the transactions he was referring to took place approximately five to six years ago. As a consequence there are no bank statements for the applicant or the sponsor before the Tribunal.
4. As discussed with the applicant at hearing, the sponsor did not disclose her relationship or marriage to the applicant to Centrelink and she was paid the single rate of payment during the period that the applicant claims they were in a spousal relationship. At hearing the applicant stated this was just outdated information/ In response to the Tribunal's post hearing letter to the applicant pursuant to s 359A, the applicant stated that he and the sponsor first met in April 2019 but the sponsor's Centrelink information was not correctly updated to remove her previous de facto partner's details until August 2019.
5. However the sponsor did not advise Centrelink of her relationship with the applicant, even when updating her partner details with Centrelink in August 2019 or when she married the sponsor in February 2020, and she was paid the single rate of payments for the duration of the claimed relationship. On the evidence before me I am not satisfied that the applicant and the sponsor shared their day to day expenses or pooled their financial resources during the period of the claimed relationship.
6. I consider that the financial aspects of the relationship offer little support for the applicant's claim to have been in a spousal relationship with the sponsor at the time of the visa application or during the period of their claimed relationship.

(i) any joint responsibility of the care and support of children;

(ii) the living arrangements of the persons; and

(iii) any sharing of the responsibility of housework.

1. The applicant claims that he and the sponsor lived together with the sponsor's children for approximately 1.5 years at a property in Keysborough, commencing a month or two after their marriage in February 2020 and ending when he moved to Caulfield in order to be closer to work a few months before their relationship broke down for the last time in about October or November 2022. At hearing he was unable to recall the full address of property, other than it was in Keysborough and included the number 15.
2. He gave evidence that the sponsor looked after her children and did most of the housework while he worked, but that he sometimes helped with cooking and doing the dishes. He said the sponsor was responsible for caring for her children, but that he played and watched TV with them. He gave evidence that he drove the sponsor and her children places because the sponsor didn't drive and that he later taught the sponsor to drive.
3. Gas and electricity bills submitted to the Department show the accounts for the Keysborough property were held solely in the applicant's name between June 2020 in February 2021, before being changed to both the applicant and sponsor's names for the period from March to July 2021. Bills for an internet service associated with the Keysborough property are also in the applicant's name between September 2020 in July 2021.
4. However for the following reasons I am not satisfied that the applicant and the sponsor ever lived together at the Keysborough property as claimed:
   • Firstly, the applicant was initially unable to tell the Tribunal the names of any of the four children who he says also lived at the property, telling the Tribunal that he didn't really use names for the children. Later he was able to name the sponsor's oldest son, but not her daughters, despite claiming that he shared a house with them for a period of approximately 18 months;
   • Secondly, the applicant gave evidence that the sponsor had three children in her care at the time they commenced their relationship, telling the Tribunal that her two daughters aged 1 - 2 and 5 - 6 were born to her previous partner, while her oldest child, a son aged 7 or 8, was born to her first marriage. However the visa application indicates that the sponsor had four young children in her care, including a third daughter born in March 2019, just one month before the applicant and sponsor claim to have met in April 2019. When I discussed this with the applicant at hearing, he said that baby was the child he referred to as being 1 - 2 years old. I do not accept that explanation, noting that he confirmed in his evidence during the hearing that the sponsor had three children and the visa application indicates that the sponsor's third born child was between one and two years this old at the time the applicant and sponsor claimed to have commenced their relationship in April 2019, while her fourth born child was just a newborn;
   • Thirdly, a letter from Each Housing dated 31 March 2020 records that the sponsor was approved as the tenant for subsidised housing at the Keysborough property with the tenancy to commence on 9 April 2020. That correspondence names the sponsor as the sole tenant and does not indicate that the landlord was aware that another adult would be living at the property, despite that tenancy commencing approximately 7 weeks after the applicant's marriage to the sponsor. At hearing the applicant responded to this by saying that they he moved into the Keysborough property after the sponsor and they didn't update the tenancy arrangements. I do not accept this explanation, noting that the Keysborough tenancy commenced approximately seven weeks after the wedding at a time when a couple in a spousal relationship might have been expected to move in together. I note also that the applicant stated in the visa application that they moved in together in January 2020, a month prior to the wedding;
   • Finally, the applicant gave evidence at hearing that he continued to live at the Keysborough property with the sponsor until mid to late 2022, telling the Tribunal that he moved to Caulfield at some point around the middle of that year to be closer to his work. He said that he and the applicant were also having some problems in their relationship at that time but that they sorted them out and the relationship continued before finally ending in October or November 2022. At hearing I discussed with the applicant that the department had received information indicating that the sponsor was living with another partner in January 2022. The applicant said that he wasn't aware of that;
   • In response to the Tribunal's post hearing letter to the applicant pursuant to s 359A, the applicant stated that he and the sponsor experienced relationship difficulties from December 2021. He states that although he was officially living with the sponsor at the Keysborough address after December 2021, he also stayed at various other locations including Caulfield, Dandenong, and St Kilda before their relationship completely broke down in November 2022 and he moved out of the Keysborough address permanently. I note this timing is contrary to his evidence at hearing, in which he stated that he lived at the Keysborough property until he moved to Caulfield a few months before their relationship broke down for the last time in about October or November 2022.
5. Considered cumulatively, the matters set out above cause me not to be satisfied that the applicant ever lived at the Keysborough property with the sponsor, notwithstanding that the utility and Internet accounts were held in his name. Nor am I satisfied that they shared a household at any other address. It follows that I do not accept that the applicant and the sponsor had any joint responsibility for the care and support of the sponsor's children or that there was any sharing of responsibility for housework at that or any other property.
6. I consider that the nature of the household is not indicative of a spousal relationship.

1. The social aspects of the relationship include:

(i) whether the persons represent themselves to other people as being married to each other; and

(ii) the opinion on the persons' friends and acquaintances about the nature of the relationship; and

(iii) any basis on which the persons plan and undertake social activities.

1. There is little persuasive evidence as to the social aspects of the relationship between the applicant and the sponsor. While I have accepted that the applicant and the sponsor were validly married in February 2020, no photos of the wedding have been provided to the Department or the Tribunal and no person who attended that wedding has made a statement about the relationship. At hearing the applicant said that the attendees of the wedding were mostly the sponsor's friends, although his housemate Aisha also attended. He was unable to name any other guests at the wedding.
2. In the visa application and the sponsorship form, the applicant and the sponsor claimed that their family and friends were aware of and supportive the relationship. However no family member of either the applicant or the sponsor provided evidence to the Department or the Tribunal. When I discussed this with the applicant, he said that neither he nor the sponsor had any family members in Australia and neither had met any member of the other's family. I accept that the applicant and the sponsor's family reside overseas, however I am concerned that not one of them has provided a statement to the Department or the Tribunal indicating they are even aware of the relationship.
3. The applicant provided two brief statements in support of the visa application. In a Form 888 dated 27 May 2020, Adam Cribbes, who describes himself as colleague of the applicant for 18 months, states that the applicant talked to him about the sponsor and their marriage. Mr Cribbes states that he believes the relationship is genuine and continuing because he knows the applicant to be a genuine and trustworthy person. He does not suggest that he has ever met the sponsor.
4. In a Form 888 dated 27 May 2020, Adorito Pinheiro states that he has worked with the applicant for two years and that the applicant used to speak to him about the sponsor and how he wanted to marry her. Mr Pinheiro states that he met the sponsor at a shopping centre two weeks before the wedding and that he was invited to attend the wedding but was not able to attend for health reasons. He states that he believes the marriage is continuing that they would live together forever. Neither Mr Cribbes nor Mr Pinheiro attended the Tribunal hearing or otherwise provided updated evidence to the Tribunal. At hearing the applicant said he would try and obtain other statements from persons who were aware of the relationship or attended the wedding and I adjourned to allow him time to do so, however no further statements were provided to the Tribunal.
5. I have also considered the five undated photographs of the applicant and sponsor and her children showing them in front of the Sydney Opera House and in a restaurant and a vehicle. I note there are no photographs of the applicant and sponsor together with any other friends or acquaintances.
6. The fact that the sponsor did not disclose the relationship or marriage to Centrelink and she was paid the single rate of payments for the duration of the claimed relationship is another reason to doubt that the applicant and sponsor held themselves out as others as being in a married relationship. In response to the Tribunal's post hearing letter to the applicant pursuant to s 359A, the applicant focuses on the sponsor not updating Centrelink about the end of her former de facto relationship until August 2019, but as set out in the Tribunal's letter the sponsor never disclosed her relationship with the applicant to Centrelink, even when updating her partner details in August 2019 or following their marriage in February 2020.
7. Ultimately the available evidence does not persuade me that the applicant and the sponsor represented themselves to other people as being married to each other, nor that it was the opinion of their friends and acquaintances that they were in a genuine spousal relationship. I consider that the social aspects of the relationship are not indicative of a spousal relationship.

(i) the duration of the relationship;

(ii) the length of time they have lived together;

(iii) the degree of companionship and emotional support they draw from each other; and

(iv) whether they see the relationship as long term

1. The applicant claims to have been in a committed relationship with the sponsor from approximately November 2019 until October or November 2022, a period of just less than two years. He claims that they lived together in the Keysborough property from about April 2022 until their final break up in October or November 2022, although he moved to Caulfield a few months before the end of that relationship to be closer to his work. He claims that during their relationship they were for the most part happy and content and saw their relationship as long-term.
2. However for the following reasons I do not accept that the applicant and sponsor drew companionship and emotional support from each other in a manner consistent with a spousal relationship, nor that they saw their relationship as a long term one:
   • The applicant and sponsor stated in the visa application that they met in a shopping centre in April 2019. However at hearing the applicant gave evidence that he met the sponsor for the first time in September or October 2019 at a friend's house. When I discussed the apparent discrepancy with him at hearing, he said that they met both at a friend's house and at a shopping centre and he didn't remember the dates;
   • The discrepancy about the timing of the start of the relationship is significant because information provided to the Department by Centrelink indicates that the sponsor was recorded as being in a de facto relationship with her former partner up until August 2019, some four months after the applicant claims to have commenced his relationship with the sponsor. When I discussed this with the applicant at hearing, he said that was old information about the sponsor's former partner that had not been updated and that the sponsor's former partner once came to the house to try to get the sponsor to resume their relationship, resulting in a police case. I note that the Centrelink information indicates that the sponsor updated Centrelink about her marital status on several occasions. Given my serious concerns about the credibility of the applicant's evidence I am not satisfied that the information in the Centrelink records is merely outdated information as the applicant claims;
   • I note also that the sponsor, through her legal representative, contacted the Department in March 2021 to withdraw the sponsorship. The sponsor later submitted a statutory declaration made 24 April 2021 indicating that she and applicant had a misunderstanding leading to that withdrawal, but once they had an open talk their problems were solved and they were now living happily together and their relationship was genuine and continuing. In August 2021 she submitted a further statutory declaration suggesting that the misunderstanding arose because he wasn't spending much time with the kids and she felt he was avoiding them, but she now knew that the actual reason was that his job and career were not going smoothly and now they have spoken openly they were happy and continuing their relationship. The applicant also submitted statutory declarations containing similar explanations. However given my very serious concerns about the credibility of the applicant's evidence and the genuineness of the relationship, I am not satisfied that the applicant and sponsor were living together at this time, nor that they saw their relationship as a genuine and long term one;
   • Further, as I have outlined above, other information contained on the departmental file indicates that the sponsor was living with another partner in January 2022, contrary to the applicant's evidence at hearing that he was living at the Keysborough property in a spousal relationship with the sponsor until at least the middle of 2022;
   • For the reasons set out above I have not accepted that the applicant and the sponsor ever lived together in the Keysborough property as claimed.
3. While I accept that the applicant and the sponsor were legally married in February 2020, I am not satisfied that they were in a relationship of any significant duration nor that they lived together, drew companionship and emotional support from each other or saw their relationship as long-term. I consider that the nature of the commitment between the applicant and the sponsor is not indicative of a spousal relationship.

1. In making an assessment as to whether a spousal relationship existed between the applicant and the sponsor at the time of application, I have considered each of the factors in r.1.15A.
2. Having considered the factors in r.1.15A(3) of the Regulations, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the financial affairs of the applicant and the sponsor, the nature of their household, the social aspects of their relationship and the nature of their commitment to each other indicate that at the time of application, the applicant and sponsor had a mutual commitment to a shared life to the exclusion of all others or that they were in a genuine and continuing de facto relationship at the time of application.
3. On the basis of the above the Tribunal is not satisfied that the requirements of s 5F(2) are met at the time the visa application was made. Therefore the applicant does not meet cl 820.211(2)(a). As the applicant has never held a Subclass 300 (Prospective Marriage) visa, he cannot meet any of the alternative requirements set out in cl 820.211(5), (6), (7), (8) or (9) and therefore he does not meet cl 820.211.
4. Having found that the time of application criteria is not met, it is unnecessary for the Tribunal to go on and consider the time of decision criteria, however I note for the sake of completeness that cl. 820.221(1) requires that the applicant continue to be the spouse of the sponsoring partner or otherwise meet one of the alternative requirements set out in cl 820.221(2) or (3). In this case the applicant's evidence is that he and the sponsor finally separated in around October or November 2022 and he has provided to the Tribunal a divorce order under the Family Law Act 1975 indicating that he and the sponsor were divorced on 8 March 2024. It follows that he cannot meet the criteria set out in cl. 820.221(1).
5. The alternative requirements set out limited exceptions to the requirement of a continuing relationship in circumstances where the sponsoring partner has died (cl. 820.221(2)); there is a child to whom both the applicant and sponsoring partner have obligations in the nature of custody, contact or access (cl. 820.221(3)(b)(i)) or where the sponsoring partner has committed family violence against the applicant or a member of the family unit of the applicant (cl. 820.221(3)(b)(ii)). At hearing the applicant confirmed that none of those circumstances apply in his case. It follows that the applicant does not meet the time of decision criteria set out in cl 820.221.
6. Therefore the applicant does not meet the requirements set out in cl 820.211(2)(a) or cl 820.221.

1. For the reasons above, the applicant does not satisfy the criteria for the grant of the visa.

1. The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicant a Partner (Temporary) (Class UK) visa.

**ATTACHMENT - Extract from Migration Regulations 1994

(1) For subsection 5F (3) of the Act, this regulation sets out arrangements for the purpose of determining whether 1 or more of the conditions in paragraphs 5F (2) (a), (b), (c) and (d) of the Act exist.

(2) If the Minister is considering an application for:

(a) a Partner (Migrant) (Class BC) visa; or

(b) a Partner (Provisional) (Class UF) visa; or

(c) a Partner (Residence) (Class BS) visa; or

(d) a Partner (Temporary) (Class UK) visa;

the Minister must consider all of the circumstances of the relationship, including the matters set out in subregulation (3).

(a) the financial aspects of the relationship, including:

(i) any joint ownership of real estate or other major assets; and

(ii) any joint liabilities; and

(iii) the extent of any pooling of financial resources, especially in relation to major financial commitments; and

(iv) whether one person in the relationship owes any legal obligation in respect of the other; and

(v) the basis of any sharing of day to day household expenses; and

(b) the nature of the household, including:

(i) any joint responsibility for the care and support of children; and

(ii) the living arrangements of the persons; and

(iii) any sharing of the responsibility for housework; and

(c) the social aspects of the relationship, including:

(i) whether the persons represent themselves to other people as being married to each other; and

(ii) the opinion of the persons' friends and acquaintances about the nature of the relationship; and

(iii) any basis on which the persons plan and undertake joint social activities; and

(d) the nature of the persons' commitment to each other, including:

(i) the duration of the relationship; and

(ii) the length of time during which the persons have lived together; and

(iii) the degree of companionship and emotional support that the persons draw from each other; and

(iv) whether the persons see the relationship as a long term one.

(4) If the Minister is considering an application for a visa of a class other than a class mentioned in subregulation (2), the Minister may consider any of the circumstances mentioned in subregulation (3).