2107808 (Migration)

This matter concerned an appeal by a visa applicant against a decision regarding their Partner (Provisional) (Class UF) visa, Subclass 309. The central dispute revolved around whether the applicant's sponsor met the sponsorship requirements under clause 309.213 and 309.222 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations. The case was heard by Brygyda Maiden.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the sponsorship of the visa applicant by her claimed spouse was approved and remained in force at the time of the decision. This required determining if the sponsor met the criteria outlined in clause 309.222, specifically concerning any convictions for a "relevant offence" and whether the sponsor had a "significant criminal record" in relation to such an offence. The Tribunal also considered the provisions of regulations 1.20J, 1.20KA, 1.20KB, 1.20KC, and 1.20KD, which define "relevant offence" and "significant criminal record" and set out circumstances where sponsorship must be refused or disregarded.

The Tribunal found that, on the evidence before it, the requirements of clause 309.222 of Schedule 2 were met. While the case text indicates the sponsor had a conviction and a suspended sentence, and that the applicant's relationship was valid and they lived in their home country, the Tribunal's decision focused on the sponsorship criteria. The Tribunal concluded that the sponsorship was valid and in force, and therefore, the appropriate course was to remit the application for the Minister to consider the remaining criteria for the Subclass 309 visa. The Tribunal directed that the visa applicant met the criteria under clause 309.222.