The decision and its procedural setting
In Singh v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2026] FCA 1638, Moshinsky J dismissed an appeal on 30 October 2026 concerning a Partner (Temporary) Class UK visa. The underlying merits decision was made by the former AAT, not the present ART. The case is a judicial-review appeal, not a fresh assessment of whether a visa should be granted.
Why criterion 3001 mattered
The applicant had been an unlawful non-citizen for approximately four years when he applied. He could not satisfy criterion 3001’s time requirement. The Tribunal therefore considered whether compelling reasons justified not applying the Schedule 3 criteria. It assessed the relationship, both parties’ health, psychological reports, financial hardship and the option of an offshore application, but remained unsatisfied.
A genuine relationship and the evidence of hardship
The Tribunal accepted that the parties supported one another. It nevertheless considered whether their circumstances went beyond the ordinary premise of a partner visa relationship and ordinary separation hardship. The result is not a rule that a genuine relationship or medical condition can never support compelling reasons. The circumstances and the evidence connecting them to the proposed separation remain critical.
New grounds on appeal
The Court reiterated that new points ordinarily require leave. Serious migration consequences do not dispense with the need to address why a point was not taken below and whether it has merit. An unexplained point of doubtful merit will generally be refused. There is an important nuance in this case: the Court inferred some explanation from the appellant’s unrepresented status and found no significant prejudice to the Minister, but refused leave because the relevant grounds lacked sufficient merit.
Interpreter and hearing complaints need proof
Allegations of miscommunication, interpreter difficulty and hearing confusion were not substantiated. Although the appellant asked the Court to listen to the hearing audio, the recording had not been put into evidence. An assertion that a hearing was confusing is not itself proof of procedural unfairness.
Practice implications
Present the complete Schedule 3 case at the Department and merits-review stages; do not hold potentially material claims back for judicial review or appeal. Explain how clinical evidence bears on separation, treatment continuity, an offshore application and the sponsor’s ability to cope. For a hearing complaint, obtain the audio, relevant interpreter evidence and contemporaneous records, and identify the alleged unfairness and its materiality. These are practical lessons from the digest, not additional findings or a substitute for the applicable law.
Where to read in the judgment
See [1]–[5] for the application and criterion 3001; [43]–[56] for the Tribunal’s reasoning; [63] and [68]–[73] for new points, evidentiary gaps and the limits of judicial review. Check the legislation applicable to the particular application rather than assuming an earlier application’s provisions are unchanged.