2451138 (Migration) - [2025] ARTA 2252

2451138 (MIGRATION) [2025] ARTA 2252 (2 JULY 2025)
DECISION AND
REASONS FOR DECISION
Respondent:  Minister for Immigration and Citizenship
Tribunal Number:  2451138

Tribunal:Senior Member M Bourke
Place:Melbourne
Date: 2 July 2025
Decision:The Tribunal sets aside the decision under review and remits the application for a Partner (Provisional) (Class UF) visa for reconsideration, in accordance with the order that the visa applicant meets the following criteria for a Subclass 309 (Partner (Provisional)) visa:
- Reg 1.20J for the purposes of cl.309.222 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations.

Statement made on 02 July 2025 at 12:29pm
CATCHWORDS
MIGRATION – Partner (Provisional) (Class UF) visa – Subclass 309 (Partner (Provisional)) – sponsorship limitation – compelling circumstances – sponsor the victim of family violence in previous relationships – family medical conditions – financial hardship – decision under review remitted
LEGISLATION
Administrative Review Tribunal Act 2024 (Cth), s 106
Migration Act 1958 (Cth), s 65
Migration Regulations 1994, Schedule 2, cls 309.213, 309.222; r 1.20
Any references appearing in square brackets indicate that information has been omitted from this decision pursuant to an order under section 70 of the Administrative Review Tribunal Act 2024 and replaced with generic information.
STATEMENT OF REASONS
APPLICATION FOR REVIEW

This is an application for review of a decision made by a delegate of the Minister for Home Affairs on 20 December 2024 to refuse to grant the visa applicant a Partner (Provisional) (Class UF) Subclass 309 visa under s 65 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (the Act).
The visa applicant applied for the visa on 30 October 2024 on the basis of their relationship with the sponsor. At that time, Class UF contain only one subclass: Subclass 309 (Partner (Provisional)) visa. The criteria for the grant of this visa are set out in Part 309 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994 (the Regulations). The primary criteria must be satisfied by at least one applicant, in this review that is the visa applicant.
The delegate refused to grant the visa on the basis that the visa applicant did not meet the sponsorship requirements in cl.309.222.
The Tribunal has considered the information contained in the Department file, and the Department’s decision record dated 20 December 2024. The Tribunal has also considered the information and submissions provided to the Tribunal. The only parties to the review are the applicant, and the Minister who is a nonparticipating party to the proceeding. The Tribunal has considered the information available to it, and is satisfied it can make a decision wholly in favour of the applicant. Further it appears to the Tribunal that the issues for determination in the proceeding can be adequately determined in the absence of the parties. Accordingly the Tribunal is satisfied that s.106(3) of the Administrative Review Tribunal Act 2024 applies to this review. The Tribunal has decided that it may make a decision without hearing after considering the documents and things given to it, pursuant to s.106(1) of the Administrative Review Tribunal Act 2024.
The following are the written reasons, the Tribunal has concluded that the decision under review is set aside and the matter should be remitted for reconsideration.
CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE
The issue in the present case is whether the applicant meets the sponsorship limitation requirements of regulation 1.20J at the time of decision in cl.309.222.
Cl.309.222(1) states that the sponsorship referred to in cl.309.213 has been approved by the Minister and is still in force. Note: Regulations 1.20J, 1.20KA and 1.20KB and 1.20KC limit the Minister’s discretion to approve sponsorships.
Regulation 1.20J places a limitation on the number of approval of sponsorships in relation to spouse, partner, prospective marriage and interdependency visas. The regulation applies to Partner (Provisional) (Class UF) visas. The regulation applies to the partner visa which is the subject of this review.
Regulation 1.20J (1) states that the Minister must not approve the sponsorship of a visa applicant unless the Minister is satisfied that (a)(i) not more than one other person has been granted a relevant permission as the spouse, de facto partner or prospective spouse of the sponsor on the basis of the sponsorship and nomination, or (ii) a person who ceased the relationship of the kind mentioned in (i) with the sponsor had suffered family violence committed by the sponsor, and (b) if another person has been granted a relevant permission in the circumstances referred to in (a) not less than five years has passed since the date of making the application for that relevant permission and (c) if the sponsor was granted a relevant permission as the spouse, de facto partner or prospective spouse of another person on the basis of the sponsorship and nomination, not less than five years has passed since the date of making the application for that relevant permission.
Regulation 1.20J (2) states that despite subregulation (1), the Minister may approve the sponsorship of an applicant for a visa if the Minister is satisfied that there are compelling circumstances affecting the sponsor.
The Tribunal is satisfied based on the information provided by the applicant and the sponsor in information provided to the Department and to the Tribunal that the sponsor has previously sponsored two other persons in relation to Partner visas. The sponsor in this review was the sponsor for a partner visa, where the date of application was 1999, and the visa was granted in 1999. The sponsor in this review was the sponsor for a partner visa where the date of application for the visa was 2022 and the grant of the visa was 2023.
The Tribunal is satisfied that the limitation of approvals of sponsorship as defined in Regulation 1.20J apply as more than one other person has been granted a relevant permission as the spouse or partner of the sponsor on the basis of the sponsorship of the sponsor, and another person has been granted a relevant permission not less than five years since the date of application in this review, namely 30 October 2024.
The Tribunal has considered the information provided by the applicant, including medical reports, and statements from the sponsor, and her three children. The Tribunal is satisfied that the sponsor was the victim of family violence in her previous relationships. The Tribunal is satisfied that the sponsor and applicant have developed a supportive relationship.
The Tribunal is satisfied based on the written evidence from the sponsor’s youngest daughter, that she has developed a long-distance and supportive relationship with the applicant. The Tribunal is satisfied that the sponsor’s youngest child, who is aged 12, has been diagnosed with leukaemia and is undergoing treatment.
The Tribunal is satisfied that the sponsor’s son who is an adult describes himself as on the spectrum with special needs. The Tribunal accepts that the sponsor’s son is dependent on his mother for support, and to assist him overcome severe anxiety and to cope with everyday tasks.
The Tribunal is satisfied that the sponsor’s oldest daughter is supportive of the relationship between the applicant and her mother, and assesses the relationship as a positive relationship for the sponsor.
The Tribunal accepts that the sponsor’s youngest daughter and son depend on her, and are facing extraordinary difficulties at the current time.
The Tribunal has considered the medical report in relation to the sponsor and accepts that she is facing ongoing physical and psychological health issues, compounded by being the carer for her youngest daughter who is undergoing complex medical treatment, and the carer for her son with special needs who requires continuous care and supervision. The Tribunal accepts the opinion of the sponsor’s treating general practitioner that the sponsor is experiencing a lack of financial and emotional support, and the separation from her husband, (the applicant), is contributing to a decline in her mental health and placing an unsustainable strain on her.
The Tribunal is satisfied based on its assessment of the evidence that there are compelling circumstances affecting the sponsor that justify the approval of the sponsorship of the application for the partner visa in this review.
For these reasons the Tribunal is satisfied that the applicant meets the sponsorship requirements in Regulation 1.20J for the purposes of cl.309.222.
Given the findings above, the appropriate course is to set aside the decision under review and remit the application for the visa to the Minister to consider the remaining criteria for a Subclass 309 visa.
DECISION
The Tribunal sets aside the decision under review and remits the application for a Partner (Provisional) (Class UF) visa for reconsideration, in accordance with the order that the visa applicant meets the following criteria for a Subclass 309 (Partner (Provisional)) visa:
- Reg 1.20J for the purposes of cl.309.222 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations.
Date(s) of hearing: N/A
Representative for the Applicant: