RAJARATNAM (Migration)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal considered the case of an applicant seeking a Partner (Migrant) (Class BC) visa, Subclass 100 (Spouse). The dispute centred on whether the applicant's sponsor, who held a Subclass 143 (Contributory Parent) visa, met the sponsorship requirements under Regulation 1.20KA of the Migration Regulations 1994. The Tribunal was tasked with determining if the sponsor was eligible to sponsor the applicant for the partner visa, given the limitations imposed by the sponsor's prior visa grant.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the sponsorship limitation under Regulation 1.20KA applied, and if so, whether there were compelling circumstances to waive this limitation. Regulation 1.20KA restricts the Minister from approving sponsorship for certain partner visas within five years of the sponsor being granted a "specified visa," which includes a Subclass 143 (Contributory Parent) visa. The Tribunal had to assess if the applicant's situation fell within the exceptions to this restriction, specifically whether the applicant had compelling reasons, unrelated to financial circumstances, for not applying for a specified visa concurrently with the sponsor.

The Tribunal reasoned that the sponsor was granted a Subclass 143 visa on 9 February 2016, meaning the five-year sponsorship restriction under Regulation 1.20KA was in effect. The applicant had not applied for a specified visa at the same time as the sponsor. The Tribunal found that the applicant's reasons for remaining in Sri Lanka, including the ill health of their mother, did not constitute compelling circumstances for not applying for a specified visa at the same time as the sponsor. The Tribunal noted that the applicant made a conscious decision to remain in Sri Lanka, and this decision was not linked to the sponsor's application for their own visa.

Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that the sponsorship requirements were not met and affirmed the decision under review.