Singh (Migration)

The applicant, Mr. Singh, sought judicial review of a decision by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) which affirmed the refusal to grant him a Partner (Temporary) (Class UK) visa (subclass 820). The central issue before the court was whether the AAT had erred in law by failing to find that compelling reasons existed to waive the Schedule 3 criteria for the visa application, given that Mr. Singh did not hold a substantive visa at the time of his application.

The court was required to determine whether the AAT had correctly applied the relevant provisions of the *Migration Regulations 1994* (Cth) and the principles established in case law concerning the assessment of "compelling reasons" for the purpose of Schedule 3. Specifically, the court considered whether the AAT had given adequate weight to the applicant's circumstances and whether its conclusion that no compelling reasons were established was a reasonable one, or if it had misconstrued the nature of "compelling reasons" by equating hardship with such.

The Senior Member of the AAT reasoned that while the applicant may have experienced hardship, this alone did not satisfy the requirement for "compelling reasons" to waive the Schedule 3 criteria. The AAT found that the applicant had not demonstrated circumstances that were so exceptional or unusual as to warrant the waiver. The court affirmed this reasoning, concluding that the AAT had not erred in law and that the applicant had failed to demonstrate the existence of compelling reasons as required by the regulations.

Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicant a Partner (Temporary) (Class UK) visa.