In November 2007, the appellant, originally from Thailand, came to Australia on a visitor visa. The Minister refused him for a protection visa, however he appealed the decision to the High Court and subsequently lost the case in October 2009. He did not hold a substantive visa until September 2010, where he submitted an application for a partner visa on-shore. The appellant later submitted what he believed to constitute compelling reasons to waive the Schedule 3 criteria, however the Minister declined the application on the grounds that he did not satisfy the Schedule 3 criteria at the time of the application.
It is important to note that the appellant made the partner visa application to the Department of Immigration and Border Protection …show more content…
The implications of this may also have an effect on the number of applications that have the Schedule 3 waiver applied due to deliberate construction of compelling reasons. An example of this could be starting a family with the sponsoring partner after submitting an application for a partner visa for the purposes of claiming hardship from being separated. However the same principal could also be applied for legitimate cases (such as accidental or planned parenthood, deriving from the example above.) In situations like this, the case for the compelling reasons to be accepted would be strengthened.
The Court held that the best possible translation of Subclause 820.211(2)(d)(ii) is that compelling reasons can be considered without respect to the time in which they happened. In this way, situations that have emerged after the application was lodged should be reviewed. The Department and the Tribunal are not restricted to considering compelling situations that existed at the time that the application was made. The Court consistently held that there is no worldly constraint on the timing the compelling reasons depended on for a Schedule 3 waiver to be
It is important to note that the appellant made the partner visa application to the Department of Immigration and Border Protection …show more content…
The implications of this may also have an effect on the number of applications that have the Schedule 3 waiver applied due to deliberate construction of compelling reasons. An example of this could be starting a family with the sponsoring partner after submitting an application for a partner visa for the purposes of claiming hardship from being separated. However the same principal could also be applied for legitimate cases (such as accidental or planned parenthood, deriving from the example above.) In situations like this, the case for the compelling reasons to be accepted would be strengthened.
The Court held that the best possible translation of Subclause 820.211(2)(d)(ii) is that compelling reasons can be considered without respect to the time in which they happened. In this way, situations that have emerged after the application was lodged should be reviewed. The Department and the Tribunal are not restricted to considering compelling situations that existed at the time that the application was made. The Court consistently held that there is no worldly constraint on the timing the compelling reasons depended on for a Schedule 3 waiver to be