Gorgievska (Migration)

This matter concerned an appeal before the Administrative Appeals Tribunal regarding a Partner (Provisional) (Class UF) visa, Subclass 309. The visa applicant, a 33-year-old man from the Republic of Macedonia, was sponsored by the review applicant, a 47-year-old dual Macedonian/Australian citizen. The primary dispute revolved around a sponsorship limitation, as the sponsor had previously sponsored two partners. The delegate had refused the application, finding that the relationship was not longstanding and that no compelling circumstances existed to override the sponsorship limitation.

The Tribunal was required to determine whether compelling circumstances existed that justified waiving the sponsorship limitation, considering the sponsor's past relationship history and the genuineness and continuance of her current relationship with the visa applicant. Specifically, the Tribunal needed to assess the degree of hardship that would befall the sponsor if the visa were refused, taking into account her role in supporting her daughter and grandchildren in Australia, including a grandson with a significant disability.

The Tribunal reasoned that the sponsor's extensive submission, detailing her difficult past relationships and her current supportive role for her daughter and grandchildren, along with the psychiatric report from Dr. Blagoje Kuljic, presented compelling circumstances. Dr. Kuljic's report indicated that the sponsor suffered from adjustment disorder with anxiety and depressed mood, exacerbated by the recent death of her brother and ongoing family stressors. He opined that a refusal of the visa would likely worsen her mental health condition, particularly given the support she provides to her daughter and grandson. The Tribunal found that the evidence, including further documentation of the relationship's genuineness and the sponsor's mental health, demonstrated compelling reasons to consider the sponsorship limitation.

Consequently, the Tribunal remitted the application for a Partner (Provisional) (Class UF) visa for reconsideration. The Tribunal directed that the visa applicant met specific criteria, namely clauses 309.211, 309.213, 309.221, and 309.222 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations, indicating that the remaining criteria for the visa should be assessed by the Minister.