Li (Migration)

This matter concerned an application for review of a decision not to grant the applicant a Partner (Temporary) (Class UK) visa (Subclass 820). The applicant had not held a substantive visa at the time of lodging the application. The Administrative Appeals Tribunal was required to determine whether the applicant satisfied the Schedule 3 criteria for the visa, and if not, whether there were compelling reasons to waive those criteria.

The primary legal issue was whether the applicant met the requirements of Schedule 3, specifically criterion 3001, which mandates that an application be lodged within 28 days of the last day the applicant held a substantive visa. The Tribunal also considered the meaning of "compelling reasons" in the context of waiving these criteria, as established in case law.

The Tribunal found that the applicant did not satisfy criterion 3001 as his application was lodged more than seven months after his last substantive visa expired. Consequently, the Tribunal considered whether there were compelling reasons to waive the Schedule 3 criteria. Applying the principles from cases such as *MZYPZ v MIAC* and *Babicci v MIMIA*, the Tribunal determined that the applicant had not demonstrated compelling reasons. The applicant's stated intention to visit family in China did not establish any impediment to his ability to return there or to secure support and employment if he were required to apply for an offshore visa.

Accordingly, the Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicant the Partner (Temporary) (Class UK) visa.