Mahrous (Migration)

This matter concerned an appeal by Mr Mahrous against a decision to refuse him a Partner (Temporary) (Class UK) visa (Subclass 820). The Federal Circuit Court had remitted the matter to the Tribunal for reconsideration. The central issue was whether "compelling reasons" existed not to apply the Schedule 3 criteria, given that Mr Mahrous had not held a substantive visa since March 2012.

The Tribunal was required to determine if there were compelling reasons to waive the Schedule 3 criteria, which Mr Mahrous did not meet. This involved assessing the credibility of evidence regarding the applicant's relationship with Ms Deng, the potential risk to Ms Deng if she were to accompany Mr Mahrous to Egypt, and whether the circumstances of their relationship constituted compelling reasons for the waiver. The Tribunal also considered the applicant's immigration history and the potential for him to apply for a visa offshore.

In its reasoning, the Tribunal applied the established legal principles that "compelling reasons" must be sufficiently convincing and the circumstances powerful enough to warrant waiving the required criteria, citing cases such as *MZYPZ v MIAC* and *Babicci v MIMIA*. The Tribunal found inconsistencies in the evidence presented, particularly concerning Ms Deng's willingness to travel to Egypt. While acknowledging that the couple would likely live apart if the visa were refused, the Tribunal concluded that this separation, in itself, did not constitute compelling reasons to waive the Schedule 3 criteria. The Tribunal was satisfied that Ms Deng would not face danger in Egypt and found the applicant's claims of her emotional reliance on him to be unlikely to meet the threshold for compelling reasons.

Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant Mr Mahrous the Partner (Temporary) (Class UK) visa, finding that the Schedule 3 criteria applied and were not met, and that no compelling reasons existed to depart from this conclusion.