Nakakapilit at / o mahabagin na mga pangyayari para sa Onshore Partner Visa (AAT FOI Document)

Kapag nag aaplay para sa isang Partner visa onshore, karaniwang inirerekomenda na ang aplikante ay ang may hawak ng isang kasalukuyang substantive visa. Gayunpaman, ayon sa Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth), kung saan ang isang aplikante ay hindi isang may hawak ng isang substantibong visa (ibig sabihin ang aplikante ay isang labag sa batas na hindi mamamayan o may hawak ng isang bridging visa) sa oras ng pagluray, maaari pa rin silang maging karapat dapat na mabigyan ng Partner visa kung masiyahan sila sa pamantayan ng Iskedyul 3.  Kung nasiyahan, ipinatutupad ng Schedule ang isang limitasyon ng oras para sa aplikante upang gawin ang kanilang aplikasyon ng Partner visa.

Gayunpaman, ang mga pamantayan na itinakda sa Iskedyul 3 ay maaaring maging mahirap para sa maraming mga potensyal na aplikante na masiyahan. Gayunpaman, sa ilalim ng Iskedyul 3, ang Ministro ay may kapangyarihang iwaksi ang mga pamantayang ito kung saan nasiyahan ang Ministro na may mga nakakahimok na dahilan upang gawin ito.

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.

Ang blog post na ito ay magbibigay ng buod ng impormasyong ibinigay ng Administrative Appeals Tribunal kung kailan maaaring iwaksi ang mga kinakailangan sa Schedule 3. Gayunpaman, kung ang mga aplikante ay nangangailangan ng tiyak na impormasyon, nababagay na payo o tulong na may kaugnayan sa isang sitwasyon ng Iskedyul 3, dapat silang makipag ugnay sa isang Australian Migration Lawyer ngayon na maaaring magbigay ng kaugnay na impormasyon at representasyon sa ngalan ng isang aplikante.

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.

[free_consultation]

Email Address *

Kung interesado kang makakuha ng karagdagang impormasyon tungkol sa isang visa, makipag ugnay sa Australian Migration Lawyers para sa isang konsultasyon.

[/free_consultation]

Mga Kinakailangan sa Iskedyul 3

Sa ilalim ng Iskedyul 3, maliban kung waived ng Ministro, ang mga potensyal na aplikante ng onshore Partner visa ay alinman sa kailangang:

• Maging may hawak ng Diplomatic (subclass 955) visa o bilang isang Special Purpose visa holder ay isang miyembro ng SOFA o ang kanilang dependent at satisfy criterion 3002 
• Satisfy criteria 3001, 3003 at 3004

Mga pamantayan 3001: 

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

Mga pamantayan 3002: 

• Gawin ang aplikasyon sa loob ng 12 buwan pagkatapos ng labag sa batas na pagpasok o overstay

Mga pamantayan 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.

Mga pamantayan 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.

Ang mga kinakailangang ito ay mahirap para sa sinumang aplikante na masiyahan, at bilang isang resulta, ang mga aplikante ay madalas na maghangad na ipakita na mayroon silang mga mapanghikayat na sitwasyon na hindi kinakailangang matugunan ang mga pamantayang ito.

[aml_difference] [/aml_difference]

Pangkalahatang alituntunin para sa 'mapilit at/o mahabagin na kalagayan'

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

Ang paggamit ng 'pagpilit' ay nagtuturo sa kinauukulang tagapagpasiya na hingin o pilitin sa isang partikular na konklusyon dahil sa pangangailangang moral. Ang paggamit ng salitang 'mahabagin' ay nagtuturo sa kinauukulang tagapagpasiya na madamay o maawa sa sitwasyon ng isang aplikante.  Habang ang mga termino ay madalas na ginagamit nang magkasama para sa pinagsama samang epekto, hindi nila kailangang gamitin nang magkasama at kung saan ito ang kaso ang iba pang mga salita ay hindi dapat isaalang alang. Samakatuwid, kapag ang panghihikayat ay tinutukoy, ang mga pangyayari ay dapat na tulad na ang gumagawa ng desisyon ay mabigat na hinihikayat na dumating sa isang partikular na pananaw.

Dahil dito, lumilitaw na ang may kaugnayan na tagapagpasya ay kinakailangan upang matugunan ang isang mataas na threshold upang iwaksi ang isang kinakailangan sa Iskedyul 3 sa anumang naibigay na pangyayari.

Waiver sa konteksto ng on shore Partner visa

Tulad ng nakasaad kanina, ang mabigat na pamantayan sa Schedule 3 ay maaaring iwaksi kung saan ang Ministro ay nasiyahan may mga nakahihikayat na dahilan upang gawin ito. 

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.

Bagama't kinikilala na may mga pagkakataon na hindi matatagpuan ang mga mapanghikayat na pangyayari dahil sa likas na katangian ng relasyon (tulad ng kung gaano katagal ang relasyon o kung ito ay tunay), ang kalagayan ng aplikante ay dapat pa ring masuri batay sa isang kaso. Dagdag pa rito, ang isang tagapagpasya kapag sinusuri kung may mga mapilit na pangyayari ay dapat na makisali sa sitwasyon mismo at magbigay ng lahat ng mga argumento at katibayan ng tunay na pagsasaalang alang. 

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.

[mga_kwento_ng_tagumpay] [/mga_kwento_ng_tagumpay]

Paano Ka Namin Matutulungan

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.