Singh (Migration)

This matter concerned an application for review by Mr Bikramjit Singh of a decision by a delegate of the Minister for Immigration to refuse him a Partner (Temporary) (Class UK) visa, subclass 820. The applicant had applied for the visa on the basis of his relationship with his sponsor, Ms Emily Connolly. The delegate refused the visa because Mr Singh did not satisfy the Schedule 3 criteria, and the reasons provided for waiving these criteria were not considered compelling. It was agreed that Mr Singh could only satisfy the relevant visa criterion by meeting Schedule 3, and that he had not held a substantive visa within the 28-day period stipulated by criterion 3001.

The legal issue before the Tribunal was whether there were compelling reasons to waive the Schedule 3 criteria, despite Mr Singh's failure to meet them. The Tribunal was required to consider the applicant's claimed compelling reasons in light of departmental policy, which indicated that these provisions were not intended to reward non-compliance with visa conditions or allow applicants to deliberately manipulate their circumstances. The policy also suggested that applicants should generally apply for a partner visa from outside Australia if possible.

The Tribunal considered the compelling reasons put forward by Mr Singh, which included the ending of his relationship with his sponsor, his non-compliance with work conditions, his marriage outside his religion, the loss of land, the duration of his time in Australia, his friendships in Australia, and his loss of social contact in his home country. The Tribunal noted that the provisions for waiving Schedule 3 criteria were not intended to provide an unfair advantage to those who failed to comply with visa conditions. The Tribunal affirmed the delegate's decision to refuse the visa.