Ho (Migration) - [2023] AATA 4220

Ho (Migration) [2023] AATA 4220 (6 September 2023)
DECISION RECORD
DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division
APPLICANT:  Mrs Thi Bach Phuong Ho
REPRESENTATIVE:  Mr Quan Do (MARN: 1577384)
CASE NUMBER:  1915892
HOME AFFAIRS REFERENCE(S):          BCC2018/1669635
MEMBER:M. Edgoose
DATE:6 September 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)(c) of Schedule 2 to the Regulations
·cl 820.211(2) of Schedule 2 to the Regulations

Statement made on 06 September 2023 at 11:28am
CATCHWORDS
MIGRATION – Partner (Temporary) (Class UK) visa – Subclass 820 (Partner) – sponsorship limitation – lifetime limit of 2 approved sponsorships – waiver of requirement – compelling circumstances – longstanding relationship – decision under review remitted
LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958 (Cth), s 65
Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth), r 1.20J; Schedule 2, cl 820.211
CASES
Babicci v MIMIA [2004] FCA 1645
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 Home Affairs 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 15 April 2018 on the basis of her relationship with her 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. Other members of the family unit, if any, who are applicants for the visa need satisfy only the secondary criteria.
The delegate refused to grant the visa on the basis that the visa applicant did not satisfy cl 820.211(2)(c).
The applicant appeared before the Tribunal on 6 September 2023 to give evidence and present arguments. The Tribunal hearing was conducted with the assistance of an interpreter in the Vietnamese and English languages.
The applicant was represented in relation to the review.
For the following reasons, the Tribunal has concluded that the matter should be remitted for reconsideration.
CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE
Is the applicant sponsored?
Clause 820.211 requires at the time of application; the applicant meets one of several alternative sub criteria. These include 820.211(2)(c) which requires that the applicant was, at the time of application, sponsored by the sponsor, where such person has turned 18; or where they have not, by the sponsor’s parent or guardian who has turned 18 and is either an Australian citizen, permanent resident or eligible New Zealand citizen (as defined in reg 1.03 of the Regulations).
At the time of decision, the applicant must continue to be sponsored by the sponsor, and the sponsorship must have been approved by the Minister and be still in force. Exceptions apply in certain circumstances where the sponsor has died, or…

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 Ho (Migration)

Details

AGLC: Ho (Migration) [2023] AATA 4220
Case: [2023] AATA 4220
Decision Date: 6 September 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal considered an application for a Partner (Temporary) (Class UK) visa, Subclass 820. The applicant sought review of a decision concerning sponsorship limitations. The core of the dispute revolved around Regulation 1.20J of the Migration Regulations 1994, which imposes a lifetime limit of two approved sponsorships for a partner visa.

The Tribunal was required to determine whether the applicant met the criteria for sponsorship under Clause 820.211 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations, and specifically, whether the sponsorship limitation under Regulation 1.20J could be waived. This involved considering whether there were "compelling circumstances" affecting the sponsor that would justify such a waiver, as contemplated by Regulation 1.20J(2). The Tribunal also had to assess the meaning of "compelling circumstances" in light of established case law.

The Tribunal reasoned that the expression "compelling circumstances" requires a consideration of whether the circumstances are so powerful as to lead to a positive finding that the provision should be waived, citing *Babicci v MIMIA* [2004] FCA 1645 and [2005] FCAFC 77. While the specific facts leading to the need for a waiver are not detailed in the provided text, the Tribunal concluded that the matter should be remitted for reconsideration by the Minister.

The Tribunal remitted the application for a Partner (Temporary) (Class UK) visa, Subclass 820, with a direction that the applicant meets the criteria specified in cl 820.211(2)(c) and cl 820.211(2) of Schedule 2 to the Regulations. This indicates that the sponsorship limitation issue, or other related criteria, required further consideration by the Minister.

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

For the following reasons, the Tribunal has concluded that the matter should be remitted for reconsideration. CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCEIs the applicant sponsored? Clause 820.211 requires at the time of application; the applicant meets one of several alternative sub criteria. These include 820.211(2)(c) which requires that the applicant was, at the time of application, sponsored by the sponsor, where such person has turned 18; or where they have not, by the sponsor’s parent or guardian who has turned 18 and is either an Australian citizen, permanent resident or eligible New Zealand citizen (as defined in reg 1.03 of the Regulations). At the time of decision, the applicant must continue to be sponsored by the sponsor, and the sponsorship must have been approved by the Minister and be still in force. Exceptions apply in certain circumstances where the sponsor has died, or family violence has occurred, or a child is involved. For visa applications made on or after 18 November 2016, the sponsor must also have consented for the Department to disclose to each applicant any conviction for a relevant offence, unless the conviction has been quashed or otherwise nullified, or where the sponsor has been pardoned with the effect that he or she is taken never to have been convicted of the offence: cl 820.221. Approval of sponsorship is subject to limitations contained in reg 1.20J of the Regulations which sets a limit on the number of people that a person can sponsor in a lifetime and a minimum time that must lapse between each sponsorship, and in reg 1.20KA which sets a limit on the period before which certain Parent visa holders can sponsor another person for a Partner visa. There are further limits imposed by reg 1.20KB in relation to sponsors charged with, or convicted of, certain offences where the visa application was made on or after 27 March 2010, and reg 1.20KC for sponsors convicted of a relevant offence who have a significant criminal record in relation to the relevant offence where the visa application was made on or after 18 November 2016. Regulation 1.20J of the Regulations sets a limit on the number of people that a person can sponsor in a lifetime and a minimum time that must lapse between each sponsorship. Under reg 1.20J, a sponsor is limited to a total, in a lifetime, of two approved sponsorships or nominations that lead to a grant of a partner visa (or entry permit) or a visa (or entry permit) granted on the basis of the domestic violence provisions. If there has been one previous sponsorship or nomination, or if the sponsor was granted a visa or entry permit as a result of being sponsored, a period of 5 years must have passed since the date of the earlier visa application. These requirements apply unless the Minister, or the Tribunal on review, is satisfied there are compelling circumstances affecting the sponsor: reg 1.20J(2). The expression ‘compelling circumstances’ is not defined in the legislation. The Tribunal must consider whether the circumstances are such that they evoke interest or attention in a powerfully irresistible way: Babicci v MIMIA [2004] FCA 1645 or are ‘so powerful that they lead the [Tribunal] to make a positive finding that the [provision] should be waived’: Babicci v MIMIA [2005] FCAFC 77.

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)(c) of Schedule 2 to the Regulations·cl 820.211(2) of Schedule 2 to the RegulationsM. EdgooseMember

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.