Rayilla (Migration)

This matter concerned an application for a Partner (Provisional) (Class UF) visa, subclass 309, made by Ms Vardharajula, with Mr Rayilla, an Australian citizen, as her sponsor. The delegate had refused the visa on the basis that regulation 1.20J prohibited the Minister from approving Mr Rayilla’s sponsorship. The Administrative Appeals Tribunal, constituted by Kate Timbs, considered whether this prohibition applied at the time of its decision.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether Mr Rayilla was prohibited from sponsoring Ms Vardharajula under regulation 1.20J of the Migration Regulations 1994. This involved determining whether any of the limitations on sponsorship, such as the number of visas previously granted based on his sponsorship or whether he had held a "specified class" of visa or been charged with a "registrable offence," applied to his situation.

The Tribunal reasoned that while the delegate's decision was made before five years had passed since the second visa granted to another person based on Mr Rayilla's sponsorship, the five-year period had elapsed by the time of the Tribunal's decision. As Mr Rayilla had been an Australian citizen for over five years and had sponsored no more than one person previously, he satisfied the criteria for sponsorship approval under regulation 1.20J. The Tribunal also found that the provisions relating to "specified class" visas and "registrable offences" did not prevent his sponsorship. Consequently, the Tribunal found that Ms Vardharajula satisfied clause 309.222(1) of the Migration Regulations.

The Tribunal set aside the delegate's decision and remitted the application for a Partner (Provisional) (Class UF) visa for reconsideration by the Department, with the direction that Ms Vardharajula satisfies clause 309.222(1).