Circunstancias imperiosas y/o compasivas para los visados Onshore Partner (Documento FOI de la AAT)

Cuando se solicita un visado de pareja onshore, se recomienda generalmente que el solicitante sea titular de un visado sustantivo en vigor. Sin embargo, de acuerdo con el Reglamento de Migración de 1994 (Cth), cuando un solicitante no es titular de un visado sustantivo (lo que significa que el solicitante es un no ciudadano ilegal o titular de un visado puente) en el momento de la presentación, todavía puede ser elegible para que se le conceda el visado de pareja si satisface los criterios del Anexo 3. Si se satisfacen, se aplica un plazo para que el solicitante haga su solicitud de visado de pareja. Si los cumple, el Anexo impone un plazo al solicitante para presentar su solicitud de visado de pareja.

No obstante, los criterios establecidos en el anexo 3 pueden resultar difíciles de cumplir para muchos solicitantes potenciales. No obstante, en virtud del anexo 3, el Ministro tiene la facultad de no aplicar estos criterios cuando considere que existen razones de peso para hacerlo.

On 17 February 2023, under Australia’s Freedom of Information scheme, the Administrative Review Tribunal (ART) published guidance on the interpretation and application of compelling circumstances in relation to onshore Partner visa applications.

Esta entrada del blog proporcionará un resumen de la información proporcionada por el Tribunal Administrativo de Apelaciones sobre cuándo se puede renunciar a los requisitos del Anexo 3. Sin embargo, si los solicitantes necesitan información específica, asesoramiento personalizado o asistencia en relación con una situación del Anexo 3, deben ponerse en contacto con un abogado de migración australiano hoy que puede proporcionar información relevante y representación en nombre de un solicitante.

Applicants should be aware that in October 2024, Australia’s appeals and review processes underwent a significant transformation with the introduction of the Administrative Review Tribunal (ART), replacing the former Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT). This change is designed to streamline decision-making and improve accessibility for applicants seeking a review of migration decisions. Although the ART is now continuing the work of its predecessor the AAT, the information provided by the AAT is still useful in understanding the complexities associated with applications involving Schedule 3 waivers. The Administrative Review Tribunal (ART) replaced the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) in October 2024. While the ART now handles migration review matters, the AAT's earlier guidance on compelling and compassionate circumstances for Schedule 3 partner visa waivers remains a relevant reference for understanding how decision-makers approach these applications.

[consulta_gratuita]

Reservar una consulta‍

Si está interesado en obtener más información sobre un visado, póngase en contacto con Australian Migration Lawyers para una consulta.

[/consulta_gratis]

Requisitos del Anexo 3

De acuerdo con el Anexo 3, salvo dispensa del Ministro, los posibles solicitantes de visado de pareja onshore deberán:

• Ser titular de un visado diplomático (subclase 955) o, como titular de un visado para fines especiales, ser miembro del SOFA o persona a su cargo y cumplir el criterio 3002. 
• Cumplir los criterios 3001, 3003 y 3004

Criterio 3001: 

The applicant must make their Partner Visa application within 28 days after becoming an unlawful non-citizen or after an overstay.

Criterio 3002: 

• Presentar la solicitud en los 12 meses siguientes a la entrada ilegal o la estancia excesiva

Criterio 3003: 

For criterion 3003 to be satisfied, all of the following must apply:

• The applicant became an unlawful non-citizen due to factors outside their control.
• There are compelling reasons to grant the visa.
• The applicant complied with the conditions of their previous visa.
• The applicant would have been entitled to a further visa.
• The applicant intends to comply with any conditions attached to a new visa.
• The applicant's last visa was not subject to a no-further-stay condition.

Criterio 3004: 

For criterion 3004 to be satisfied, all of the following must apply:

• The applicant entered Australia unlawfully and has not subsequently been granted a substantive visa.
• The applicant does not hold a substantive visa because of factors beyond their control.
• There are compelling reasons for granting the visa.
• The applicant has complied substantially with the conditions of their previous visa.
• The applicant would have been entitled to a subsequent visa.
• The applicant intends to comply with any conditions attached to a new visa.
• The applicant's last visa was not subject to a no-further-stay condition.

Estos requisitos son arduos de cumplir para cualquier solicitante, por lo que a menudo los solicitantes intentarán demostrar que tienen circunstancias imperiosas para que no se les exija cumplir estos criterios.

[aml_difference][/aml_difference]

Principios generales de las "circunstancias imperiosas y/o compasivas

Within the Migration Act or the Migration Regulations, despite being terms critical to the waiving of specific requirements, ‘compelling’ and ‘compassionate’ are not specifically defined. As a result, it is a contextual case-by-case consideration made by the Minister or the Administrative Review Tribunal (ART), informed by the context the phrase is used in and the purpose of the provision the phrases is located. When considering the applicant’s situation, all of their circumstances must be accounted for

El uso de la palabra "apremiante" indica al responsable de la toma de decisiones que debe exigírsele u obligársele a llegar a una conclusión determinada por necesidad moral. El uso de la palabra "compasivo" indica al responsable de la toma de decisiones que debe sentir compasión por la situación del solicitante. Aunque los términos se utilizan a menudo juntos por su efecto acumulativo, no tienen por qué utilizarse juntos y, en tal caso, la otra palabra no debe tenerse en cuenta. Por lo tanto, cuando se habla de obligar, las circunstancias deben ser tales que el responsable de la toma de decisiones se vea fuertemente persuadido para llegar a una determinada opinión.

En consecuencia, parece que el responsable de la toma de decisiones pertinente debe alcanzar un umbral elevado para renunciar a un requisito del anexo 3 en cualquier circunstancia.

Exención en el marco de un visado de pareja en el extranjero

Como ya se ha dicho, se puede prescindir de los gravosos criterios del anexo 3 cuando el Ministro considere que hay razones de peso para hacerlo. 

The purpose of this waiver was to recognise that there can be potential hardships suffered by an applicant that would result in circumstances where an applicant should remain onshore when applying for a Partner visa, rather than being forced to leave. The Department of Home Affairs guides decision-makers to consider why the applicant became unlawful in Australia and what the circumstances out of their control are.  Therefore, decision-makers should endeavour to consider all of the relevant circumstances of the applicant, including information available at the time of lodgement up to the time the decision was made. As long as the reasons exist prior to a decision being made, they are deemed to be relevant considerations for the purposes of determining whether there are compelling reasons to waive the various criteria.

Aunque se reconoce que hay casos en los que no se encontrarán circunstancias imperiosas debido a las características inherentes de la relación (como la duración de la relación o si es genuina), las circunstancias del solicitante deben evaluarse caso por caso. Además, al evaluar si concurren circunstancias imperiosas, el responsable de la toma de decisiones debe analizar la situación por sí mismo y tener realmente en cuenta todos los argumentos y pruebas. 

Decision-makers are not required to consider international obligations or treaties when considering compelling reasons for the purposes of a Schedule 3 waiver.

Ultimately, decision-makers must not disregard substantiated reasons put to them, and must keep in mind that the purpose of the waiver is to avoid requiring applicants to leave Australia in circumstances where such departure would cause genuine hardship.

Common examples of circumstances that applicants have raised in support of a Schedule 3 waiver include: a child born of the relationship, a serious medical condition affecting the applicant or their partner, financial hardship that would result from departure, or a genuine long-term relationship where the applicant became unlawful due to circumstances beyond their control. The weight given to these circumstances depends on the individual case and the strength of the evidence provided. No single factor is determinative.

[historias_de_éxito] [/historias_de_éxito]

Cómo podemos ayudarte

As discussed above, it is possible for applicants who do not hold a substantive visa to have the Schedule 3 requirements waived when applying onshore for a Partner Visa. The legal framework governing these applications is complex, and the threshold for a successful waiver is high. Australian Migration Lawyers have the knowledge and experience to help applicants navigate this process, build a compelling case, and present all relevant circumstances effectively to decision-makers. Contact Australian Migration Lawyers today to discuss your situation. We are available seven days a week.