Mor v Minister for Immigration

The applicant, Mr Mor, sought judicial review of a decision by the Minister for Immigration to refuse his partner visa application. The application had been refused by a delegate of the Minister and subsequently by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT). Mr Mor had previously held a student visa which was cancelled, and a prior application for a protection visa had also been refused. The AAT had considered the criteria for a partner visa, including Schedule 3 criteria, and had also dealt with a certificate issued under s 376 of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth) concerning the disclosure of certain information.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the AAT had erred in its assessment of the Schedule 3 criteria, specifically whether there were compelling reasons not to apply those criteria as required by the *Migration Regulations 1994* (Cth), and whether the non-disclosure of a s 376 certificate had deprived the applicant of procedural fairness. The court also considered whether the applicant had adduced sufficient evidence to demonstrate a continuing relationship with his sponsor that would constitute a compelling reason to waive the Schedule 3 requirements.

Justice A Kelly found that the AAT had properly considered the Schedule 3 criteria. The Tribunal had determined that Mr Mor had not satisfied the requirement to lodge his partner visa application within 28 days of holding a substantive visa, as he had last held a substantive visa in March 2013 and lodged his application in May 2015. The AAT had also correctly concluded that there were no compelling reasons not to apply these criteria. The applicant's claims that he was not notified of his visa cancellation and the existence of a long-standing relationship with his sponsor were rejected as insufficient to establish compelling reasons. While the Tribunal accepted evidence of a relationship since 2013, it found minimal independent evidence of cohabitation and insufficient proof of socialisation between 2013 and 2014. Furthermore, the court held that the non-disclosure of the s 376 certificate, which related to an interim intervention order and family violence complaint made by the sponsor against the applicant, did not cause a denial of procedural fairness.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.