Muzamil (Migration)

The applicant, Muzamil, sought judicial review of a decision by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) which affirmed the refusal of a Partner (Temporary) (Class UK) visa, subclass 820. The core of the dispute concerned the applicant's eligibility for the visa, specifically in relation to the sponsorship requirement.

The primary legal issue before the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia was whether the AAT had erred in law by affirming the visa refusal, notwithstanding that the sponsoring partner had withdrawn their sponsorship at the time the AAT made its decision. The court was required to consider the relevant provisions of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth) and the *Migration Regulations 1994* (Cth) concerning the sponsorship obligations for a Partner visa.

Her Honour Judge Holub reasoned that the legislative framework for the Partner visa requires the applicant to continue to be sponsored by the sponsoring partner at the time the decision on the visa application is made. As the AAT had found as a fact that the sponsorship had been withdrawn and the applicant was no longer being sponsored by the sponsoring partner at the time of the AAT's decision, the applicant did not meet a criterion for the grant of the visa. The court applied the principle that a failure to satisfy a mandatory criterion for a visa leads to refusal.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.