ALMSODNE (Migration)

[2022] AATA 1385

ALMSODNE (Migration) [2022] AATA 1385 (9 May 2022)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

APPLICANT:  Ms SEHAM LATEF GHANEM ALMSODNE

REPRESENTATIVE:  Mr Hulio Gash (MARN: 1281149)

CASE NUMBER:  1814723

HOME AFFAIRS REFERENCE(S):          CLF2016/39373

MEMBER:Russell Matheson

DATE:9 May 2022

PLACE OF DECISION:  Sydney

DECISION:The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicant an Other Family (Residence) (Class BU) visa.

Statement made on 09 May 2022 at 9:43am

CATCHWORDS
MIGRATION – Other Family (Residence) (Class BU) visa – Subclass 836 (Carer) – assistance cannot reasonably be obtained from service providers in Australia – no assessment by aged care assessment team and no substantive evidence of contact with service providers – cultural and language preference for care by family member – applicant’s extended travel to third country – decision under review affirmed

LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958 (Cth), s 65
Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth), r 1.15AA(1)(e)(ii), Schedule 2, cl 836.221

STATEMENT OF DECISION AND REASONS

APPLICATION FOR REVIEW

1. This is an application for review of a decision made by a delegate of the Minister for Home Affairs on 9 May 2018 to refuse to grant the review applicant an Other Family (Residence) (Class BU) visa under s 65 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (the Act).

2. The applicant applied for the visa on 29 June 2016. At that time, Class BU contained three subclasses, being Subclass 835 (Remaining Relative); Subclass 836 (Carer) and Subclass 838 (Aged Dependent Relative: item 1123B of Schedule 1 to the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth) (the Regulations). In the present case, the applicant is seeking to satisfy the criteria for the grant of a Subclass 836 visa. The criteria for a Subclass 836 visa are set out in Part 836 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations. Relevantly to this matter, the primary criteria to be met include cl 836.221.

3. The delegate refused to grant the visa on the basis that cl 836.221 was not met because the delegate was not satisfied that the assistance required by the sponsor cannot reasonably be obtained from welfare, hospital, nursing or community services in Australia and therefore the applicant did not meet the definition of a carer in r.1.15AA(1)(e)(ii).

4. The Tribunal exercised its discretion to hold the hearing by video conference. The hearing was held during the COVID-19 pandemic. The Tribunal determined it was reasonable to hold a hearing by videoconference, having regard to the nature of this matter and the individual circumstances of the applicant. The Tribunal also had regard to the Tribunal’s objective of providing a mechanism of review that is fair, just, economical, and quick, and the delay to the matter if the hearing was not to be conducted by videoconference. The Tribunal is satisfied that the applicant was given a fair opportunity to give evidence and present arguments.

5. The applicant appeared before the Tribunal on 19 January 2022 to give evidence and present arguments. The Tribunal also received oral evidence from the applicant’s father Lateef Ghanim Luaibi Almsodni and her brother Husam Lateef Ghanim Almosodany. The Tribunal hearing was conducted with the assistance of an interpreter in the Arabic and English languages.

6. The applicant was represented in relation to the review. The representative attended the Tribunal hearing.

7. For the following reasons, the Tribunal has concluded that the decision under review should be affirmed.

   CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE

8. The issue in the present case is whether the applicant ( Ms Seham Latef Ghanem Almsodne) is the carer of the resident and sponsor (Lateef Ghanim Luaibi Almsodni) at the time of this decision. For the purposes of this application, the resident is the sponsor.

   Whether the applicant has claimed to be the ‘carer’

9. Clause 836.221 requires that at the time of decision, the applicant is a carer of the Australian relative (or ‘resident’). The term ‘carer’ is defined in reg 1.15AA of the Regulations which is set out in the attachment to this Decision.

   Applicant is a relative of the resident – r.1.15AA(1)(a)

10. Regulation 1.15AA(1)(a) requires the applicant to be a “relative” of the resident (within the meaning of r.1.03). In the present case, the resident is identified as the applicant’s father. Based on the evidence, the Tribunal accepts that the resident is the father of the applicant. Therefore, the applicant is a relative of the resident within the meaning of r.1.03 and meets the requirements of r.1.15AA(1)(a).

    Certification – r.1.15AA(1)(b)

11. Regulation 1.15AA(1)(b) requires that a certificate, which meets the requirements of r.1.15AA(2), states that: the resident or a member of the family unit has a medical condition; that the medical condition is causing physical, intellectual or sensory impairment of the ability of that person to attend to practical aspects of daily life; that the impairment has a rating (under the impairment tables) that is specified in the certificate; and that because of the condition, the person has and will continue for at least two years to have, a need for direct assistance in attending to the practical aspects of daily life.

12. For a certificate to meet r.1.15AA(2), it must be signed and issued in relation to a medical assessment carried out on behalf of a health provider specified by the Minister (see Legislative Instrument IMMI 14/085) or issued by a specified health provider in relation to a review of such an opinion.

13. The Tribunal has been provided with a Carer Visa Assessment Certificate (CVAC or certificate) dated 28 October 2021 in respect of the resident. The Tribunal notes that it is in relation to a medical assessment carried out on behalf of Bupa Medical Visa Services and is signed by the medical adviser who carried out the assessment. The Tribunal further notes that the CVAC states that the Australian resident has medical conditions that are causing impairments of his ability to attend to the practical aspects of daily life, that these impairments are assigned ratings for the purposes of the impairment table, and that because of the medical condition, the resident has and will continue to have for at least two years a need for direct assistance in attending to the practical aspects of daily life.

14. The Tribunal is satisfied as to the genuineness of the certificate and finds that it meets the requirements of r.1.15AA(2). Further, the certificate addresses each of the matters mentioned in r.1.15AA(1)(b)(i)-(iv). Accordingly, the requirements of r.1.15AA(1)(b) are met.

    Residency status of person with medical condition – r.1.15AA(1)(ba)

15. Regulation 1.15AA(1)(ba) requires that the person who has the medical condition is an Australian citizen, Australian permanent resident, or eligible New Zealand citizen. In the present case, the person with the medical condition (the resident) is an Australian citizen. Accordingly, the requirements of r.1.15AA(1)(ba) are met.

    Impairment rating – r.1.15AA(1)(c)

16. Regulation 1.15AA(1)(c) states that the impairment rating must be equal to or exceed the impairment rating specified by the relevant legislative instrument. The relevant instrument for these purposes is IMMI 07/012.

17. In the present case, the impairment rating specified in the certificate is 45. This rating exceeds the impairment rating specified by the relevant instrument and therefore meets  the requirements of reg 1.15AA(1)(c).

    Resident’s need for assistance (where he or she is not the subject of the certificate) – r.1.15AA(1)(d)

18. Where the person to whom the certificate relates is not the resident, but a member of their family unit, r.1.15AA(1)(d) requires the resident to have a permanent or long-term need for assistance in providing the direct assistance mentioned in r.1.15AA(1)(b)(iv). That direct assistance is for the subject of the certificate attending to the practical aspects of daily life for at least two years as a result of the medical condition.

19. As the person to whom the certificate relates is the resident, r.1.15AA(1)(d) does not apply.

    Assistance cannot be reasonably obtained/provided – r.1.15AA(1)(e)

20. Regulation 1.15AA(1)(e) requires that the assistance cannot reasonably be provided by: any other relative of the resident who is an Australian citizen, permanent resident, or an eligible New Zealand citizen; or obtained from welfare, hospital, nursing, or community services in Australia.

21. Under r.1.15AA(1)(b)(iv), the assistance is taken to be “direct assistance in attending to the practical aspects of daily life”. The Tribunal now turns to the task of assessing the level and particulars of this assistance.

22. According to the CVAC dated 28 October 2021, the resident has been diagnosed with the following medical conditions that may impact their capacity to self-care:

    ·Ischemic heart disease – this is known to his cardiologist for management. He has had several attacks of myocardial infarction (MI) and stenting done but is still suffering from unstable angina which requires him to get admitted to hospital quite frequently. He has a cardiac pacemaker in situ. He also suffers from chronic heart failure. According to the cardiologist he has been treated and no further management is given. He is in a stable condition.

    ·Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) – He has been suffering from this for a long time. He is on multiple puffers and has frequent mild to moderate exacerbations. He is not on home oxygen.

    ·Chronic Kidney Disease (CKD) - He has had CKD with mild to moderate proteinuria for a long time. Aetiology of this condition is multifactorial. Known reasons are chronic staghorn, calculi, chronic hypertension (HTN) and diabetes. According to his nephrologist, the progression is very slow. Currently he is in stage 4 CKD. His kidney functions are stable, but specialists had discussed the possibility of  stage 5 with End Stage Kidney Disease (ESKD), which will cause him to be a future dialysis candidate.

    ·Osteoarthritis - he is suffering from bilateral (B/L) knee pains and lumbar spinal pain due to osteoarthritis. This is currently managed conservatively. In addition to this condition, he has severe osteoporosis and sensory neuropathy of hands and legs.

    ·Mental health issues – He is suffering from PTSD and adjustment disorders. This is known to psychiatrists. He is currently stable and happy at home to be with the family only.

23. In the summary comments, the examining doctor relevantly stated as follows in relation to the resident:

    Mr Almsodni is 82 years old and is suffering from COPD, IHD, CKD stage 4, severe osteoporosis with osteoarthritis and some mental health issues. His chronic weakness is due to his heart failure, unstable angina, COPD and chronic anaemia as a result of his kidney disease. His knee pains, lower back pain and peripheral neuropathy makes him vulnerable to frequent falls. Because of his severe osteoporosis he is in a very high-risk category for safety. He needs assistance and supervision for his ADLs.

24. The examining doctor assessed the resident requiring direct assistance with mobility as he needs assistance with all transfers. The resident uses a walking stick indoors and outdoors.  For bathing/showering, he uses a shower chair and needs supervision and support to feel safe inside the bathroom. For toileting he sometimes needs support for transfers, but cleaning can be managed independently. He is independent when eating. He needs supervision and prompting when taking medications as he can be forgetful. He needs supervision for personal safety as he has had several episodes of falls indoors and outdoors which have required hospital admissions, he is not safe to be by himself. He requires assistance with transportation. The resident is partially dependent in relation to Activities of Daily Living (ADLs).

25. The examining doctor assessed that the resident’s medical conditions resulted in the need for personal care and attention on a daily basis to carry out routine bodily functions. The resident’s medical conditions result in the need for constant supervision or monitoring because he may be a danger to herself or another person and the conditions are permanent (at least two years). As above, the impairment rating for the CVAC was 45 points.

26. The examining doctor also considered the following medical reports relevant to the assessment:

    ·Professor Hany Dimitri - Cardiologist reports dated 10 March 2021, 16 February 2021, 24 June 2020 and 26 February 2020.

    ·Dr Anas Natfaji - Nephrologist report dated 4 May 2021.

    ·Faud Sarfraz - Optometrist report dated 4 May 2021.

    ·Ian Goris-Graham - Rheumatologist reports dated 15 June 2020 and 9 July 2020.

    ·Emergency Department discharge letters from Liverpool and Bankstown Hospitals.

    ·Dr Husan Alkurdi - GP letter dated 27 January 2021.

27. At hearing, the applicant told the Tribunal that the resident suffers from numerous conditions. The applicant said that she provides the resident with comprehensive care and does everything for him assisting him, with medical appointments, medication, food, cleaning and language difficulties. The applicant claims in oral and written submissions that she is  obligated by Mandean culture and tradition to care for her father. The applicant further stated that her father will not accept anything or anyone outside their culture to help him with his needs. The applicant, her brother (Husam) and the resident stated it is the family’s preference for the applicant to be her father’s carer.  

28. The applicant and resident have provided evidence to the Department of seeking care assistance in January and August 2017 from the following:

    ·     Auburn Family Support Services;

    ·     Fairfield Parents Support Centre;

    ·     Vulnerable Families Program; and

    ·     Arabic Family Support and Aged Care Services.

29. There is little evidence before the Tribunal to corroborate the claims other than the applicant’s statement. The Tribunal places little weight on this as evidence that assistance could not be reasonable obtained from welfare, hospital, nursing or community services in Australia.

30. The resident’s son Wisam has provided evidence to the Tribunal by way of a statutory declaration dated 25 January 2022 of seeking care assistance via telephone calls to the  following:

    ·Bankstown Community Health Centre on 21 January 2022; he spoke to Tayla who stated, “ We apologise we cannot help you because you did not meet the association condition.”

    ·Blacktown Community Health Centre on 21 January 2022; he spoke to Stelle who stated, “ We apologise we cannot help with executing your needs plan.”

    ·Hayee Group Services Community Services; he spoke to Krissy who stated, “ We are unable to offer a person to assist you at this time.”

    ·Tripoli and Mena Association on 24 January 2022; he spoke to Chris who stated,      “ We apologise we can not help you with your problem,”

    ·Liverpool and Fairfield Hospitals on 24 January 2022, who did not answer.

31. There is no other supportive evidence before the Tribunal to corroborate the claims other than the resident’s son’s statutory declaration. The Tribunal places little weight on this as evidence that assistance could not be reasonably obtained from welfare, hospital, nursing or community services in Australia.

32. The Tribunal has considered the medical information and other evidence including the testimony of the applicant, witness and resident at hearing. Based on this evidence, it finds that the resident requires assistance with the full range of functions, that his independent living skills are in the low range and that he is highly dependent on others to care for and support himself.

33. These may be said to be the practical aspects of daily life for which the resident has a need for direct assistance now and for the next two years under reg 1.15AA(1)(b)(iv).

34. The Tribunal now turns to the question of whether the assistance cannot reasonably be provided by any other relative of the resident who is an Australian citizen, permanent resident or an eligible New Zealand citizen.

35. Based on the evidence before it, the Tribunal finds that the resident has the following relatives in Australia:

    ·Mrs Nooriya Almsodni (wife);

    ·Abdul Almsodni (brother);

    ·Sehham Latef Ghanem Almsodne (daughter/ applicant);

    ·Salma Almsodni (daughter);

    ·Salam Almsodne (son);

    ·Husam Almsodany (son);

    ·Wisam Almsodni (son); and

    ·Salim Alsodeny (son).

36. The applicant provided statutory declarations and medical certificates to the Tribunal and Department from the following people:

    ·The resident’s brother, Abdul. He states he is also ill and under the care of a specialist and has children of his own and has no capacity to care for the resident.

    ·The resident’s son, Salam. He states he is unable to care for the resident because he has his own medical appointments and has no capacity to care for the resident because he is a  chronic schizophrenic.

    ·The resident’s son, Husam. He states that while the applicant is away in the United States for a break, he will be looking after the resident, but he cannot properly take care of his father’s serious condition given his family commitments ( he has four children) and his limited English skills.

    ·The resident’s son, Wisam. He cannot take care of  the resident because he cares for his mother (the resident’s wife) and he has three children to care for and his wife also has medical conditions. He states that he has no capacity to care for the resident and he also has limited English skills.

    ·The resident’s daughter, Salma. She cannot care for the resident because she has eight children to care for and has her own medical conditions.

    ·The resident’s wife. She cannot care for him because she has her own medical issues and suffers from depression because two of her sons remain in Syria and are at risk because of their religious minority status (Mandean).

    ·The resident’s son, Salim. He has six children of his own and is a pensioner and has his own medical conditions and he has no capacity to care for the resident. He also has limited English skills.

37. The applicant stated that she has contacted a number of care providers who could not provide the resident with assistance. The services contacted were not aged care services and nursing homes are likely to be expensive. The applicant has not provided any substantive information to support these claims. The Tribunal accepts that the applicant’s siblings, Abdul, Salam, Wisam, Salma, Salim and the resident’s wife do not have the capacity to care for the resident due to their own health issues and family commitments. The Tribunal accepts that Wisam is already a carer for his mother who is living in the same household with the resident. There is no substantive evidence before the Tribunal to indicate that Husam cannot continue to provide the care and support to the resident that he has been providing for over the past two years.

38. The applicant told the Tribunal that the resident has not been assessed by an Aged Care Assessment Team (ACAT).  She stated that  she has not made any enquiries and she does her own research, and her father has not been referred for an assessment by his doctor, and that her father would not accept any help outside the family for cultural reasons and linguistic concerns because her father has trouble communicating with people other than his family. There is little evidence before the Tribunal to indicate that the applicant or the resident have made attempts to transgress cultural norms that purportedly exist in order to obtain care from Australian services. The Tribunal asked the applicant who is currently looking after her father. The applicant responded that her younger brother Husam is looking after her father at the moment because she is currently living in the USA. The Tribunal asked the applicant why she is living in the USA. She stated that she had returned to apply for citizenship in the USA as security so she could travel in and out of Australia. The Tribunal notes that the applicant travelled to the USA on 27 January 2020 and her brother has previously cared for her father when she returned to the USA on another occasion in 2019 for a period of approximately three months. The applicant has not returned to Australia due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The resident stated that his son Husam is not working and is looking after him during the day and goes home to his family in the evening and there are things he can’t do when he goes home. The Tribunal accepts that the resident may be limited to what he can do during the evening in the absence of his son. He further stated that his son can’t work because he is taking care of him. The resident’s son Husam gave evidence that he has only ever worked for a brief period of time in 2021 and was able to provide care for the resident during this period and has never worked at any other time. He is currently receiving government support and is not working and there is no evidence before the Tribunal that he is seeking employment in the near future or that his circumstances will change. The resident’s son’s circumstances enable him to be able to manage his family commitments and care for the resident. The Tribunal questioned Husam why he could not continue to care for his father; he stated that his parents are old, and he is aware that help is out there, but it would not be enough and that it would be better for his sister to care for his parents because she would be more suitable and is not working.

1. While the resident and his family may have a preference for the applicant to be the full-time carer, this does not negate the requirement for the family to investigate a range of other suitable care arrangements including residential facilities or a combination of family support and in home assistance. The Tribunal has concerns that the applicant has returned to the USA on a number of occasions for personal reasons and to obtain her USA citizenship so she could come and go from Australia at will, and she stated that she considers Australia to be her second country. The Tribunal notes that the applicant has not been in Australia for a significant period of time due to COVID-19. It is during her absence throughout and prior to COVID-19 that her younger brother has been able to care for their father during the day and there is no supportive evidence of him seeking future employment or a change of circumstances that would prevent him from caring for the resident.  

2. The Tribunal broadly discussed  the benefits of having an ACAT assessment with the applicant and resident and how this could benefit him with a high level of aged care to assist him with daily living activities. There is no evidence that the sponsor has been assessed by an ACAT. Therefore, it has not been determined whether assistance for the sponsor may be reasonably obtained from services in Australia. An ACAT assessment may not be a requirement under the Regulations or in policy, however an ACAT assessment would determine the sponsor’s eligibility to obtain government subsidised aged care services including residential care, residential respite care and home care, including one of four levels of home care packages and determine the services reasonably obtainable to provide assistance for the sponsor. Information before the Tribunal (Myagedcare.gov.au) is that home care packages provide a large range of home services to the person needing the care which include but are not limited to:

   ·Personal services: assistance with personal activities such as bathing, showering, toileting, dressing and undressing, mobility and communication.

   ·Nutrition, hydration, meal preparation and diet: assistance with preparing meals, including special diets for health, religious, cultural or other reasons; assistance with using eating utensils and assistance with feeding.

   ·Continence management: assistance in using continence aids and appliances such as disposable pads and absorbent aids, commode chairs, bedpans and urinals, catheter and urinary drainage appliances, and enemas.

   ·Mobility and dexterity: providing crutches, quadruped walkers, walking frames, walking sticks, mechanical devices for lifting, bed rails, slide sheets, sheepskins, tri-pillows, pressure-relieving mattresses and assistance with the use of these aids.

   ·Nursing, allied health and other clinical services: speech therapy, podiatry, occupational or physiotherapy services, hearing and vision services. Home care level 1 and 2 packages are not intended to provide comprehensive clinical or health services. Home care level 3 and 4 packages have a greater emphasis on delivering complex care in the home, including more clinical care where needed.

   ·Transport and personal assistance: assistance with shopping, visiting health practitioners and attending social activities.

   ·Management of skin integrity: assistance with bandages, dressings and skin emollients.

3. Other information is that there are services for older persons with cultural and linguistic backgrounds and aged care services can be obtained, including a Translating and Interpreting Service (TIS) support 24 hours a day, seven days a week for the cost of a local call. There is little evidence before the Tribunal that any attempts have been made by the applicant or resident to access any interpreting services that may be available to address any cultural or linguistic concerns regarding the resident.

4. The Tribunal is not satisfied that assistance for the sponsor cannot be reasonably obtained   from welfare, hospital, nursing or community services in Australia, or by a combination of these services. The Tribunal has been provided statements that services are not available for the resident, however it has not been provided any substantive information to support those claims, nor has the sponsor been assessed by ACAT to determine what services may be reasonably obtained from welfare, hospital, nursing or community services in Australia.

5. Having considered the evidence individually and as a whole, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the sponsor cannot reasonably obtain assistance from community services in Australia; therefore r.1.15AA(1)(e)(ii) is not satisfied.

6. Regulation 1.15AA(1)(f) requires that the applicant is willing and able to provide to the resident substantial and continuing assistance of the kind needed under subparagraph (b)(iv) or paragraph (d), as required.

7. The applicant provided a statutory declaration and gave oral evidence in which she declared that she was caring for the resident prior to leaving Australia. This care has involved helping the resident with communication, showering, preparing meals and paying attention to his medication.

8. Based on the evidence provided, the Tribunal is satisfied that the applicant satisfies          reg 1.15AA(1)(f), that is, the applicant is willing and able to provide to the resident substantial and continuing assistance of the kind needed under subparagraph (b)(iv) or paragraph (d), as required.

9. However, as the applicant does not meet the requirements as defined in 1.15AA(1)(e)(ii), the applicant is unable to meet the requirements of a Carer as defined in reg 1.15AA. As the applicant does not satisfy Regulation 1.15AA, the applicant does not meet cl 836.221 in Schedule 2 to the Regulations.

10. For the reasons above, the applicant does not meet the criteria for a Subclass 836 visa. In respect of the other visa subclasses, there is no material which would permit a finding that the applicant meets prescribed criteria for the visa sought.

    DECISION

11. The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicant an Other Family (Residence) (Class BU) visa.

    Russell Matheson
    Member

    
    

    ATTACHMENT

    Migration Regulations 1994

    1.15AA Carer

    1.15AA (1)An applicant for a visa is a carer of a person who is an Australian citizen usually resident in Australia, an Australian permanent resident or an eligible New Zealand citizen (the resident) if:

    (a)the applicant is a relative of the resident; and

    (b)according to a certificate that meets the requirements of subregulation (2):

    (i)a person (being the resident or a member of the family unit of the resident) has a medical condition; and

    (ii)the medical condition is causing physical, intellectual or sensory impairment of the ability of that person to attend to the practical aspects of daily life; and

    (iii)the impairment has, under the Impairment Tables (within the meaning of subsection 23(1) of the Social Security Act 1991), the rating that is specified in the certificate; and

    (iv)because of the medical condition, the person has, and will continue for at least 2 years to have, a need for direct assistance in attending to the practical aspects of daily life; and

    (ba)the person mentioned in subparagraph (b)(i) is an Australian citizen, an Australian permanent resident or an eligible New Zealand citizen; and

    (c)the rating mentioned in subparagraph (b)(iii) is equal to, or exceeds, the impairment rating specified in a legislative instrument made by the Minister for this paragraph; and

    (d)if the person to whom the certificate relates is not the resident, the resident has a permanent or long-term need for assistance in providing the direct assistance mentioned in subparagraph (b)(iv); and

    (e)the assistance cannot reasonably be:

    (i)provided by any other relative of the resident, being a relative who is an Australian citizen, an Australian permanent resident or an eligible New Zealand citizen; or

    (ii)obtained from welfare, hospital, nursing or community services in Australia; and

    (f)the applicant is willing and able to provide to the resident substantial and continuing assistance of the kind needed under subparagraph (b)(iv) or paragraph (d), as the case requires.

    (2)A certificate meets the requirements of this subregulation if:

    (a)it is a certificate:

    (i)in relation to a medical assessment carried out on behalf of a health service provider specified by the Minister in an instrument in writing; and

    (ii)signed by the medical adviser who carried it out; or

    (b)it is a certificate issued by a health service provider specified by the Minister in an instrument in writing in relation to a review of an opinion in a certificate mentioned in paragraph (a), that was carried out by the health services provider in accordance with its procedures.

    (3)The Minister is to take the opinion in a certificate that meets the requirements of subregulation (2) on a matter mentioned in paragraph (1)(b) to be correct for the purposes of deciding whether an applicant satisfies a criterion that the applicant is a carer.