1732568 (Migration)

This matter concerned an application for a Partner (Provisional) (Class UF) visa, Subclass 309 (Spouse (Provisional)), made by [Ms A] as the primary applicant and [Ms B] as a secondary applicant. The dispute arose because the primary applicant, [Ms A], did not meet the health requirements stipulated by Public Interest Criterion (PIC) 4007 of the Migration Regulations 1994. The decision was made by Kate Millar, a Member of the Tribunal.

The Tribunal was required to determine whether the primary applicant, [Ms A], satisfied PIC 4007(1)(c), which concerns freedom from a disease or condition that would likely require significant health care or community services, resulting in substantial cost to the Australian community or prejudice to the access of Australian citizens or permanent residents to such services. The Tribunal also considered the requirement to obtain and apply the opinion of a Medical Officer of the Commonwealth (MOC) in assessing PIC 4007, and the circumstances under which such an opinion must be taken as correct.

The Tribunal reasoned that while a MOC had found the applicant met PIC 4007(a) and (b), the assessment of PIC 4007(c) was in issue. The Tribunal noted that it must take a MOC's opinion as correct, provided the MOC applied the correct statutory test. However, the provided text indicates that the MOC's opinion regarding PIC 4007(c) was not definitively established or applied in a manner that satisfied the Tribunal. Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that the matter should be remitted for reconsideration.

The Tribunal remitted the applications for Partner (Provisional) (Class UF) visas for reconsideration, with a direction that the first named visa applicant, [Ms A], meets PIC 4007(2)(b) for the purposes of cl.309.225 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations. This suggests that the waiver provisions for PIC 4007(c) were considered or found to be applicable in the context of the applicant's circumstances, potentially due to their financial resources to meet medical costs and family links in Australia, although these specific grounds for waiver are not explicitly detailed in the provided decision text.