Soraya (Migration)

This matter concerned an application for a Partner (Temporary) (Class UK) visa, Subclass 820, made by the applicant, Soraya. The primary dispute before the Tribunal was whether the sponsorship requirements for the visa had been met. The Tribunal, constituted by Christine Kannis, was tasked with determining if the applicant's sponsor satisfied the relevant legislative provisions.

The legal issues before the Tribunal were twofold. Firstly, whether the applicant was sponsored by a sponsor who met the criteria under clause 820.211(2)(c) of Schedule 2 to the Regulations at the time of application. Secondly, and more critically, whether the sponsorship, as required by clause 820.221(4), could be approved by the Minister and remain in force, given that the sponsor had previously sponsored two other partners who were granted permanent visas. This second issue hinged on whether there were "compelling circumstances" affecting the sponsor that would permit a waiver of the sponsorship limitations imposed by regulation 1.20J of the Regulations.

The Tribunal reasoned that the initial sponsorship requirement under clause 820.211(2)(c) was met, as evidenced by the Form 40SP and the sponsor's Australian citizenship. However, the Tribunal found that regulation 1.20J, which limits a person to sponsoring no more than two partners for visas allowing indefinite stay, was engaged because the sponsor had previously sponsored two individuals who received permanent visas. The Tribunal considered the meaning of "compelling circumstances" as circumstances that evoke interest or attention in a powerfully irresistible way, or are so powerful as to lead to a positive finding that the provision should be waived. Citing departmental policy, the Tribunal noted that examples of compelling circumstances include having a dependent child with the applicant, the death of a previous partner, or a long-standing relationship. While the text does not explicitly state the specific circumstances of the current relationship, the Tribunal's decision to remit the matter suggests that it considered the existing relationship and potentially other factors in its assessment of compelling circumstances.

Consequently, the Tribunal remitted the application for reconsideration by the Minister, with a direction that the applicant met the sponsorship criteria under clauses 820.211(2)(c) and 820.221(4) of Schedule 2 to the Regulations. This indicated that the Tribunal found sufficient grounds to allow for further consideration of the sponsorship, likely based on the presence of compelling circumstances.