Puru (Migration)

This matter concerned applications for Partner (Temporary) (Class UK) visas, Subclass 820, made by Mr Puru and two other applicants. The central dispute revolved around whether the applicants met the Schedule 3 criteria for the visa, or if there were compelling reasons to waive these criteria, given that none of the applicants held a substantive visa at the time of their applications. The case was heard by Adrienne Millbank, a member of the Tribunal.

The legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the applicants satisfied the Schedule 3 criteria, specifically criterion 3001, and if not, whether there were compelling reasons to waive these criteria. Criterion 3001 requires that an application for the visa be lodged within 28 days of the "relevant day," which is defined by the Migration Regulations 1994. The Tribunal was also required to consider the definition of "compelling reasons" as interpreted by case law, which necessitates circumstances sufficiently convincing and powerful to warrant a waiver of the required criteria.

The Tribunal found that the first and second applicants did not satisfy criterion 3001 as their applications were not lodged within the prescribed 28-day period after their last substantive visa ceased. However, the Tribunal considered the "compelling reasons" for waiving the Schedule 3 criteria. Mr Puru provided details of his past criminal convictions, which occurred when he was young and without stable employment, and noted no court convictions since 2003. He also explained a recent fine for being drunk and disorderly, attributing it to a desire to support a friend and a conflict with work commitments. The Tribunal accepted that these circumstances, along with the long-term relationship and the detriment to his current employer if he were to leave, constituted compelling reasons to waive the Schedule 3 criteria for the first and second applicants.

Consequently, the Tribunal remitted the applications of the first and second named applicants for reconsideration, with a direction that the first named applicant meets the Schedule 3 criteria. The Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the visa to the third named applicant, Jody Puru (junior), as he was no longer a dependent child.