如果结婚的目的就是为了拿Pr，那么移民局会给批准么？
最近Judge Driver 给了肯定的答案。令移民局，Mrt都大跌眼镜
In the case before Judge Driver there was a significant age difference between the
parties.
56. Critically, and as noted in the applicant’s submissions, the Tribunal’s
negative conclusion rested upon its reasoning at [103][64] where the Tribunal
said:
o The Tribunal is of the view that Mrs Angkawijaya and Mr
Limberiou are committed to an agreement that they have negotiated to
meet particular needs, rather than committed to a relationship with
each other. The Tribunal considers that they have agreed to exchange
services, and the Tribunal accepts that to this extent they see the
relationship as long term. Mrs Angkawijaya has agreed to stay with Mr
Limberiou for as long as he lives, and in return her expenses for her
and her children are provided for, and she secures permanent
residency for herself and her children. When the Tribunal raised this
issue stating that it appeared she was more a carer for Mr Limberiou,
than in a committed relationship with him, she stated that both were
mixed together. She loves all people. She had felt sorry for Mr
Limberiou. The Tribunal accepts that Mrs Angkawijaya has prepared
meals for Mr Limberiou, has assisted him with him medication and
treatment, and that she accompanies him at home. It accepts that their
relationship has been physically intimate. However it does not accept
that this represents or demonstrates commitment to him in a shared life
together as … partners.
57. The reality (on all of the material before the Tribunal), was that Ms
Angkawijaya and Mr Limberiou had entered into an agreement to remain
together until his death and to support each other in a personal relationship.
The elements of that relationship went well beyond a contractual agreement
to provide care services. It was unrealistic for the Tribunal, given the
circumstances of the relationship, and the age gap between the parties to it,
to expect a demonstration of romantic love and Ms Angkawijaya was honest
in not attempting falsely to assert any romantic love. What was or should have
been apparent to the Tribunal was that Ms Angkawijaya showed a genuine
commitment to a shared life with Mr Limberiou. He at least arguably had a
similar commitment to her.
58. The reasons for entering into that commitment were no doubt
calculated to obtain a personal advantage on both sides. She was to get
residency. He was to get care and support. Some may disapprove but that is
a value judgement. Mr Limberiou was honest when he told the Tribunal that if
Ms Angkawijaya were denied a visa he would find someone else. That is what
many people do when they are deprived of their partner by circumstances
beyond their control. It is neither for this Court, nor the Tribunal, to make a
value judgement on the motivation for the relationship.
59. In my opinion, the Tribunal imposed a value judgement in its
application of the criteria in regulation 1.09A for the purposes of s.5CB of the
Migration Act which led it into error. By applying a value judgement, the
Tribunal lost sight of what the Full Federal Court in Minister for Immigration v
Dhillon[65] emphatically stated was the true and only test in relation to a
partner visa: that is, whether at the time at which the matter has to be decided
it can be said that the parties have a mutual commitment to a shared life as a
husband and wife to the exclusion of all others. The reasons for entering into
that commitment are immaterial.
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/FCCA/2015/450.html