Bedi (Migration)

[2020] AATA 5208

Bedi (Migration) [2020] AATA 5208 (1 December 2020)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

APPLICANT:  Mr Deepak Bedi

CASE NUMBER:  1836732

HOME AFFAIRS REFERENCE(S):          BCC2018/620910

MEMBER:Kira Raif

DATE:1 December 2020

PLACE OF DECISION:  Sydney

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)(ii) of Schedule 2 to the Regulations

Statement made on 01 December 2020 at 7:25pm

CATCHWORDS
MIGRATION – Partner (Temporary) (Class UK) visa – Subclass 820 (Partner) – application made more than 28 days after last substantive visa held – compelling reasons for not applying criteria – Australian citizen child of relationship – decision under review remitted

LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958 (Cth), s 65
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
Waensila v MIBP [2016] FCAFC 32

STATEMENT OF DECISION AND REASONS

Application for review

1. This is an application for review of a decision made by a delegate of the Minister for Home Affairs to refuse to grant the applicant a Partner (Temporary) (Class UK) visa under s.65 of the Migration Act 1958 (the Act).

2. The applicant applied for the visa on 6 February 2018 on the basis of his relationship with his sponsor. The delegate refused to grant the visa on the basis that the visa applicant did not satisfy cl.820.211 because the delegate found that the applicant did not meet Public Interest Criterion 3001. The applicant seeks review of the delegate’s decision.

3. The applicant was represented in relation to the review by his registered migration agent. No hearing was held in this case as the Tribunal was able to make favourable decision on the material before it. For the following reasons, the Tribunal has concluded that the matter should be remitted for reconsideration.

   Relevant law

4. 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).

5. 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.

6. 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).

   Does the applicant meet Schedule 3 criteria?

7. The applicant provided to the Tribunal a copy of the primary decision record which contains his immigration history. The applicant entered Australia in October 2007 holding a Student visa, which was cancelled in January 2010. The applicant was then granted a Skilled visa and a Student visa which was valid until 15 March 2015. The applicant’s subsequent application for a Student visa was refused by the delegate and affirmed by the Tribunal.

8. The Tribunal finds that the applicant last held a substantive visa when his Student visa expired on 15 March 2015. He was not the holder of a substantive visa at the time he made the application for the present Partner visa in 2018. There is nothing to suggest that the applicant entered Australia as a holder of a Subclass 995 (Diplomatic) visa or as a special purpose visa holder. The Tribunal is not satisfied the applicant meets cl. 820.211(d)(i).

9. The applicant is required to satisfy the Schedule 3 criterion 3001 for the purpose of cl. 820.211(d)(ii).

10. There is nothing before the Tribunal to indicate that the applicant held an entry permit that was valid up to and including 31 August 1994. There is nothing to indicate that the applicant became an illegal entrant before 1 September 1994. There is nothing to indicate that the applicant ceased to hold a criminal justice visa on or after 1 September 1994 or that she entered Australia unlawfully on or after 1 September 1994. There is nothing to suggest that 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.

11. The Tribunal has found that the applicant ceased to hold a substantive visa when his Student visa ceased in March 2015. The Tribunal finds that that date is the ‘relevant day’ within the meaning of subclause 3001(2)(c)(i) of Schedule 3. As the application for the present Partner visa was made in February 2018, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the application was validly made within 28 days after the relevant day. The Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant meets Item 3001.

12. Clause 820.211(d)(ii) allows for this criterion to be waived if the Tribunal is satisfied that there are compelling reasons for not applying the criterion.

    Compelling reasons

13. 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.

14. The expression ‘compelling reasons’ is not defined for these purposes. However, the reasons should be sufficiently convincing to move the decision-maker to exercise its discretion to waive the requisite criteria and the circumstances must be sufficiently powerful to lead a decision-maker to make a positive finding in favour of waiving the required criteria: MZYPZ v MIAC [2012] FCA 478 at [10]; Babicci v MIMIA (2005) 141 FCR 285 at [24]. Circumstances which constitute ‘compelling reasons’ for not applying the Schedule 3 criteria can arise at any time, including after the visa application is made: Waensila v MIBP [2016] FCAFC 32.

15. The applicant provided various documents with the primary application and additional evidence to the Tribunal. Significantly, the applicant provided to the Tribunal evidence of a birth of a child. The Tribunal finds that there is a child from the applicant’s relationship with the sponsor.

16. The Tribunal is of the view that the existence of an Australian citizen child from the applicant’s relationship with the sponsor constitutes a compelling reason for not applying the Schedule 3 criteria.

17. The Tribunal is satisfied that there are compelling reasons for not applying the Schedule 3 criteria. Accordingly, the applicant meets cl.820.211(2)(d)(ii).

    Conclusion

18. 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

19. 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)(ii) of Schedule 2 to the Regulations

    Kira Raif
    Senior Member