ANANNYA SHARMIN (Migration)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal considered an application for a Partner (Provisional) (Class UF) visa, Subclass 309, made by Anannya Sharmin. The dispute centred on whether the applicant's sponsor had met the requirements for sponsorship, specifically concerning limitations on the number of times a person can sponsor a partner visa and the time elapsed between sponsorships, as stipulated by regulation 1.20J of the Migration Regulations 1994.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether "compelling circumstances" existed that would justify waiving the sponsorship time limit requirement under regulation 1.20J(2). This regulation imposes a limit on the number of partner visas a person can sponsor in their lifetime and mandates a minimum five-year period between sponsorships if the sponsor has previously been granted a visa as a result of being sponsored. The Tribunal was required to determine if the circumstances presented by the sponsor, including the breakdown of a previous marriage due to domestic violence and the sponsor's mental health, coupled with the separation from the applicant due to visa refusal and review, constituted such compelling circumstances.

The Tribunal reasoned that the sponsor's previous marriage had ended due to domestic violence, and the sponsor had also experienced mental health issues. Furthermore, the sponsor and applicant had been separated due to the visa refusal and the subsequent review application. Applying the principles from *Babicci v MIMIA* [2004] FCA 1645 and [2005] FCAFC 77, the Tribunal considered whether these circumstances were sufficiently powerful to warrant a waiver of the time limit imposed by regulation 1.20J. The Tribunal concluded that the matter should be remitted for reconsideration.

The Tribunal remitted the application for a Partner (Provisional) (Class UF) visa for reconsideration, directing that the visa applicant meets the criteria under cl.309.213 and cl.309.222 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations.