1614439 (Migration)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) affirmed a delegate's decision to refuse a Partner (Temporary) (Class UK) visa to the applicant. The applicant had applied for the visa on 25 February 2016, but the delegate refused it on the grounds that the applicant did not meet Schedule 3 criteria, and there were no compelling reasons to waive these requirements. The applicant and his sponsor provided evidence and appeared before the Tribunal, which conducted its hearing with the assistance of an interpreter.

The legal issues before the Tribunal included whether the applicant satisfied the requirements of clause 820.211(2)(d) of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994, specifically in relation to Schedule 3 criterion 3001. The Tribunal also considered whether there were compelling or compassionate reasons to waive the Schedule 3 requirements. Crucially, the Tribunal had to determine if the applicant had knowingly provided false or misleading information, particularly concerning the paternity of a child, which could engage Public Interest Criterion (PIC) 4020.

The Tribunal's reasoning focused on the applicant's inconsistent and contradictory evidence regarding the paternity of his child, [Miss A]. Initially, the applicant claimed to be the biological father and provided a birth certificate listing him as such. However, he later advised the Department of Home Affairs that he was not the biological father. At the Tribunal hearing, he again insisted he was the biological father, despite understanding the distinction between biological and social parentage. Subsequently, he indicated he would not undergo DNA testing for [Miss A] but would for a second child, [Mr B], for whom he was confirmed as the biological father. The Tribunal found that the applicant had repeatedly provided false and misleading information, rendering his evidence unreliable and making it unable to accept any of his evidence at face value. This conduct engaged PIC 4020, and the Tribunal found no compelling or compassionate circumstances that justified granting the visa.

Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the delegate's decision to refuse the visa application.