2216826 (Migration) - [2023] AATA 1925

2216826 (Migration) [2023] AATA 1925 (13 June 2023)
DECISION RECORD
DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division
REPRESENTATIVE:  Mr Tony Tran
CASE NUMBER:  2216826
MEMBER:Margie Bourke
DATE:13 June 2023
PLACE OF DECISION:  Melbourne
DECISION:The Tribunal remits the application for a Partner (Temporary) (Class UK) visa, with the direction that the applicant meets the following criteria for a Subclass 820 (Partner) visa:
·cl 820.211(2)(d) of Schedule 2 to the Regulations.

Statement made on 13 June 2023 at 2:42pm
CATCHWORDS
MIGRATION – Partner (Temporary) (Class UK) visa – Subclass 820 (Partner) – Federal Circuit and Family Court remittal – not holder of substantive visa a time of application – application made more than 28 after last substantive visa ceased – compelling reasons for not applying criterion – long-standing relationship – statutory declarations from applicant, sponsor and sponsor’s relatives – relationship as primary male figure for sponsor’s grandchild – decision made without hearing necessary – decision under review remitted
LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss 65, 360
Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth), Schedule 2, cl 820.211, Schedule 3, Criterion 3001
CASES
Babicci v MIMIA (2005) 141 FCR 285
MZYPZ v MIAC [2012] FCA 478
Plaintiff M64/2015 v MIBP [2015] HCA 50
Waensila v MIBP [2016] FCAFC 32
Any references appearing in square brackets indicate that information has been omitted from this decision pursuant to section 378 of the Migration Act 1958 and replaced with generic information.
STATEMENT OF DECISION AND REASONS
APPLICATION FOR REVIEW

This is an application for review of a decision made by a delegate of the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection to refuse to grant the applicant a Partner (Temporary) (Class UK) visa under s.65 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (the Act).
The applicant applied for the visa on 25 January 2016 on the basis of his relationship with his sponsor. At that time, Class UK contained only one subclass: Subclass 820 (Partner). The criteria for the grant of this visa are set out in Part 820 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth) (the Regulations). The primary criteria must be satisfied by at least one applicant.
In a decision dated 9 February 2017, the Department delegate refused to grant the visa on the basis that the visa applicant did not satisfy cl.820.211(2)(d)(ii) because the delegate found the applicant did not satisfy the Schedule 3 requirement, and that there were no compelling reasons to waive the Schedule 3 requirement.
The tribunal, differently constituted, in a decision dated 10 October 2017, affirmed the decision of the Department.
The judgement of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) dated [October] 2022, found the decision of the Tribunal dated 10 October 2017 was affected by jurisdictional error, and the matter was remitted back to the Tribunal requiring it to redetermine the review. The judgement recorded the two errors by the Tribunal; firstly that the Tribunal did not engage in an active and intellectual process in relation to an issue that was capable of being dispositive of…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading 2216826 (Migration)

Details

AGLC: 2216826 (Migration) [2023] AATA 1925
Case: [2023] AATA 1925
Decision Date: 13 June 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

This matter concerned an application for a Partner (Temporary) (Class UK) visa, Subclass 820, which had been remitted to the Tribunal by the Federal Circuit and Family Court. The central dispute revolved around whether the applicant met Schedule 3 criteria, specifically criterion 3001, which requires an application to be made within 28 days of the last substantive visa ceasing, or if there were compelling reasons for these criteria not to be applied.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was to determine if the applicant satisfied the Schedule 3 criteria for the Partner visa, or if compelling reasons existed to waive these criteria. This involved assessing whether the application was lodged within the prescribed 28-day period following the cessation of the applicant's last substantive visa, which was a transit visa that expired on 27 May 2015. The applicant’s partner visa application was lodged on 25 January 2016.

The Tribunal found that the applicant did not hold a substantive visa at the time of application and that the application was lodged significantly more than 28 days after the cessation of their last substantive visa. Consequently, the applicant did not satisfy criterion 3001 of Schedule 3. However, the Tribunal considered the evidence presented, including statutory declarations, which indicated a long-standing relationship and the applicant's role as a primary male figure for the sponsor's grandchild. The Tribunal concluded that the decision to refuse the visa had been made without a full hearing of these compelling reasons.

The Tribunal remitted the application back to the Department for reconsideration, with a direction that the applicant met criterion cl.820.211(2)(d) of Schedule 2 to the Regulations, acknowledging the compelling reasons for not applying the Schedule 3 criteria in this instance.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

The following are the written reasons that the Tribunal has concluded that the matter should be remitted back to the Department for reconsideration.CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCESCHEDULE 3 CRITERIA (cl 820.211(2)(d))Does the applicant meet Schedule 3 criteria, or are there compelling reasons for not applying those criteria? An applicant who is not the holder of a substantive visa at the time of application must meet certain criteria in Schedule 3 to the Regulations. With limited exceptions not relevant to this case, he or she must satisfy Schedule 3 criteria 3001, 3003, and 3004 unless the Minister is satisfied that there are compelling reasons for not applying those criteria: cl.820.211(2)(d). It is not in dispute that the applicant in the present case did not have a substantive visa at the time of application. As the applicant did not enter Australia as the holder of a Subclass 995 visa or special purpose visa, the issue in the present case is whether the applicant satisfies the Schedule 3 criteria unless there are compelling reasons for not applying those criteria. These criteria are set out in the attachment to this decision.Criterion 3001 In order to satisfy criterion 3001, the application for the visa must have been lodged within 28 days of the relevant day. The ‘relevant day’ is defined in 3001(2), as set out in the attachment to this decision. The Tribunal has noted the submissions from the applicant’s representative dated 5 June 2023, in which at page 6 the representative states, “it is not in dispute that the applicant does not meet Schedule 3 criteria of the Migration Regulations 1994 (The Regulations) as the applicant was not a holder of a substantive visa at the time of application.” The Tribunal is satisfied based on the information contained in the Department’s decision record dated 9 February 2017 that the applicant arrived in Australia on 24 May 2015 as the holder of a transit visa which ceased on 27 May 2015. The Tribunal is satisfied based on the submissions from the applicant’s representative and the information in the Department’s decision record, and other information in the Department and Tribunal files provided by the applicant, that the applicant did not hold a substantive visa after the transit visa ceased on 27 May 2015. The Tribunal is satisfied that the application for the partner visa, which is the subject of this review was lodged on 25 January 2016. The relevant day, is the last day the applicant held a substantive visa, and in this review the relevant day is 27 May 2015. The application for the visa was made on 25 January 2016 and was not made within 28 days of the relevant day, being 27 May 2015. As the visa application was not made within 28 days of the relevant day, the applicant does not satisfy criterion 3001.Compelling reasons As the Tribunal has found that the applicant does not meet the relevant Schedule 3 criteria, it is required to consider whether there are compelling reasons for not applying the criteria.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Given the findings above, the appropriate course is to remit the application for the visa to the Minister to consider the remaining criteria for a Subclass 820 visa.DECISION The Tribunal remits the application for a Partner (Temporary) (Class UK) visa, with the direction that the applicant meets the following criteria for a Subclass 820 (Partner) visa:·cl.820.211(2)(d) of Schedule 2 to the Regulations.Margie BourkeMemberATTACHMENT - Extract from Migration Regulations 1994Schedule 33001(1)The application is validly made within 28 days after the relevant day (within the meaning of subclause (2)).(2)For the purposes of subclause (1) and of clause 3002, the relevant day, in relation to an applicant, is:(a)if the applicant held an entry permit that was valid up to and including 31 August 1994 but has not subsequently been the holder of a substantive visa — 1 September 1994; or(b)if the applicant became an illegal entrant before 1 September 1994 (whether or not clause 6002 in Schedule 6 of the Migration (1993) Regulations applied or section 195 of the Act applies) and has not, at any time on or after 1 September 1994, been the holder of a substantive visa — the day when the applicant last became an illegal entrant; or(c)if the applicant:(i) ceased to hold a substantive or criminal justice visa on or after 1 September 1994; or(ii) entered Australia unlawfully on or after 1 September 1994;whichever is the later of:(iii) the last day when the applicant held a substantive or criminal justice visa; or(iv) the day when the applicant last entered Australia unlawfully; or(d)if the last substantive visa held by the applicant was cancelled, and the Tribunal has made a decision to set aside and substitute the cancellation decision or the Minister's decision not to revoke the cancellation — the later of:(i) the day when that last substantive visa ceased to be in effect; and(ii) the day when the applicant is taken, under sections 368C, 368D and 379C of the Act, to have been notified of the Tribunal's decision.3003If:(a)the applicant has not, on or after 1 September 1994, been the holder of a substantive visa; and(b)on 31 August 1994, the applicant was either:(i) an illegal entrant; or(ii) the holder of an entry permit that was not valid beyond 31 August 1994;the Minister is satisfied that:(c)the applicant last became an illegal entrant, or, in the case of a person referred to in subparagraph (b)(ii), last became a person in Australia without a substantive visa, because of factors beyond the applicant's control; and(d)there are compelling reasons for granting the visa; and(e)the applicant has complied substantially with the conditions that apply or applied to:(i) the last of any entry permits held by the applicant (other than a condition of which the applicant was in breach solely because of the expiry of the entry permit); and(ii) any subsequent bridging visa; and(f)the applicant would have been entitled to be granted an entry permit equivalent to a visa of the class applied for if the applicant had applied for the entry permit immediately before last becoming an illegal entrant or, in the case of a person referred to in subparagraph (b)(ii), if the applicant had applied for the entry permit on 31 August 1994; and(g)the applicant intends to comply with any conditions subject to which the visa is granted; and(h)the last entry permit (if any) held by the applicant was not granted subject to a condition that the holder would not, after entering Australia, be entitled to be granted an entry permit, or a further entry permit, while the holder remained in Australia.3004If the applicant:(a)ceased to hold a substantive or criminal justice visa on or after 1 September 1994; or(b)entered Australia unlawfully on or after 1 September 1994 and has not subsequently been granted a substantive visa;the Minister is satisfied that:(c)the applicant is not the holder of a substantive visa because of factors beyond the applicant's control; and(d)there are compelling reasons for granting the visa; and(e)the applicant has complied substantially with:(i) the conditions that apply or applied to:(A)the last of any entry permits held by the applicant (other than a condition of which the applicant was in breach solely because of the expiry of the entry permit); and(B)any subsequent bridging visa; or(ii) the conditions that apply or applied to:(A)the last of any substantive visas held by the applicant (other than a condition of which the applicant was in breach solely because the visa ceased to be in effect); and(B)any subsequent bridging visa; and(f)either:(i) in the case of an applicant referred to in paragraph (a) — the applicant would have been entitled to be granted a visa of the class applied for if the applicant had applied for the visa on the day when the applicant last held a substantive or criminal justice visa; or(ii) in the case of an applicant referred to in paragraph (b) — the applicant would have satisfied the criteria (other than any Schedule 3 criteria) for the grant of a visa of the class applied for on the day when the applicant last entered Australia unlawfully; and(g)the applicant intends to comply with any conditions subject to which the visa is granted; and(h)if the last visa (if any) held by the applicant was a transitional (temporary) visa, that visa was not subject to a condition that the holder would not, after entering Australia, be entitled to be granted an entry permit, or a further entry permit, while the holder remained in Australia.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

The Tribunal remits the application for a Partner (Temporary) (Class UK) visa, with the direction that the applicant meets the following criteria for a Subclass 820 (Partner) visa:·cl.820.211(2)(d) of Schedule 2 to the Regulations.Margie BourkeMemberATTACHMENT - Extract from Migration Regulations 1994Schedule 33001(1)The application is validly made within 28 days after the relevant day (within the meaning of subclause (2)).(2)For the purposes of subclause (1) and of clause 3002, the relevant day, in relation to an applicant, is:(a)if the applicant held an entry permit that was valid up to and including 31 August 1994 but has not subsequently been the holder of a substantive visa — 1 September 1994; or(b)if the applicant became an illegal entrant before 1 September 1994 (whether or not clause 6002 in Schedule 6 of the Migration (1993) Regulations applied or section 195 of the Act applies) and has not, at any time on or after 1 September 1994, been the holder of a substantive visa — the day when the applicant last became an illegal entrant; or(c)if the applicant:(i) ceased to hold a substantive or criminal justice visa on or after 1 September 1994; or(ii) entered Australia unlawfully on or after 1 September 1994;whichever is the later of:(iii) the last day when the applicant held a substantive or criminal justice visa; or(iv) the day when the applicant last entered Australia unlawfully; or(d)if the last substantive visa held by the applicant was cancelled, and the Tribunal has made a decision to set aside and substitute the cancellation decision or the Minister's decision not to revoke the cancellation — the later of:(i) the day when that last substantive visa ceased to be in effect; and(ii) the day when the applicant is taken, under sections 368C, 368D and 379C of the Act, to have been notified of the Tribunal's decision.3003If:(a)the applicant has not, on or after 1 September 1994, been the holder of a substantive visa; and(b)on 31 August 1994, the applicant was either:(i) an illegal entrant; or(ii) the holder of an entry permit that was not valid beyond 31 August 1994;the Minister is satisfied that:(c)the applicant last became an illegal entrant, or, in the case of a person referred to in subparagraph (b)(ii), last became a person in Australia without a substantive visa, because of factors beyond the applicant's control; and(d)there are compelling reasons for granting the visa; and(e)the applicant has complied substantially with the conditions that apply or applied to:(i) the last of any entry permits held by the applicant (other than a condition of which the applicant was in breach solely because of the expiry of the entry permit); and(ii) any subsequent bridging visa; and(f)the applicant would have been entitled to be granted an entry permit equivalent to a visa of the class applied for if the applicant had applied for the entry permit immediately before last becoming an illegal entrant or, in the case of a person referred to in subparagraph (b)(ii), if the applicant had applied for the entry permit on 31 August 1994; and(g)the applicant intends to comply with any conditions subject to which the visa is granted; and(h)the last entry permit (if any) held by the applicant was not granted subject to a condition that the holder would not, after entering Australia, be entitled to be granted an entry permit, or a further entry permit, while the holder remained in Australia.3004If the applicant:(a)ceased to hold a substantive or criminal justice visa on or after 1 September 1994; or(b)entered Australia unlawfully on or after 1 September 1994 and has not subsequently been granted a substantive visa;the Minister is satisfied that:(c)the applicant is not the holder of a substantive visa because of factors beyond the applicant's control; and(d)there are compelling reasons for granting the visa; and(e)the applicant has complied substantially with:(i) the conditions that apply or applied to:(A)the last of any entry permits held by the applicant (other than a condition of which the applicant was in breach solely because of the expiry of the entry permit); and(B)any subsequent bridging visa; or(ii) the conditions that apply or applied to:(A)the last of any substantive visas held by the applicant (other than a condition of which the applicant was in breach solely because the visa ceased to be in effect); and(B)any subsequent bridging visa; and(f)either:(i) in the case of an applicant referred to in paragraph (a) — the applicant would have been entitled to be granted a visa of the class applied for if the applicant had applied for the visa on the day when the applicant last held a substantive or criminal justice visa; or(ii) in the case of an applicant referred to in paragraph (b) — the applicant would have satisfied the criteria (other than any Schedule 3 criteria) for the grant of a visa of the class applied for on the day when the applicant last entered Australia unlawfully; and(g)the applicant intends to comply with any conditions subject to which the visa is granted; and(h)if the last visa (if any) held by the applicant was a transitional (temporary) visa, that visa was not subject to a condition that the holder would not, after entering Australia, be entitled to be granted an entry permit, or a further entry permit, while the holder remained in Australia.