Oan (Migration)

This matter concerned an application for a Partner (subclass 820/801) visa, which was the subject of a review by the Tribunal. The applicant had a complex migration history, including previous visa cancellations and refusals, and at the time of the application, held a Bridging visa E (subclass WE-050) without work rights. The core dispute revolved around whether the applicant met the Schedule 3 criteria for the visa application, or if there were compelling reasons to waive these criteria.

The legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the applicant satisfied the Schedule 3 criteria, specifically criteria 3001, 3003, and 3004 of the Migration Regulations 1994, and if not, whether there were compelling reasons for the Minister to exercise discretion to waive these criteria. The Tribunal was required to consider the definition and application of "compelling reasons" in the context of waiving Schedule 3 requirements, drawing on established case law.

The Tribunal reasoned that the applicant did not hold a substantive visa at the time of application, thus triggering the application of Schedule 3 criteria. After examining the applicant's history and the relevant regulations, the Tribunal found that the applicant did not meet the Schedule 3 criteria. Furthermore, the Tribunal concluded that there were no compelling reasons, as defined by case law such as *MZYPZ v MIAC* and *Babicci v MIMIA*, to waive these criteria. The Tribunal affirmed the delegate's decision not to grant the visa.