Bate (Migration)

[2023] AATA 167

Bate (Migration) [2023] AATA 167 (27 January 2023)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

APPLICANTS:  Mrs Jacqueline Annette Bate
Mr James Robert Bate
Miss Evelyn Hannah-Mai Bate
Master Harrison James Bate

REPRESENTATIVE:  Mr Rupert Timms

CASE NUMBER:  2213708

HOME AFFAIRS REFERENCE(S):          BCC2021/558524

MEMBER:Wan Shum

DATE:27 January 2023

PLACE OF DECISION:  Sydney

DECISION:The Tribunal remits the application for Skilled Nominated (Permanent) visas for reconsideration, with the direction that the first named applicant meets the following criteria for a Subclass 190 visa:

·PIC 4005 for the purposes of cl 190.216(3) of Schedule 2 to the Regulations.

Statement made on 27 January 2023 at 4:27pm

CATCHWORDS
MIGRATION – Skilled Nominated (Permanent) visa (Class SN) – Subclass 190 (Skilled - Nominated) – health criteria – condition likely to require care or services at significant cost to Australian community – ankylosing spondylitis – opinion of review medical officer of commonwealth taken as correct – decision under review remitted

LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958 (Cth), s 65
Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth), r 2.25, Schedule 2, cl 190.216(3), Schedule 4, criterion 4005(1)(c)

CASES
Ramlu v MIMIA [2005] FMCA 1735
Robinson v MIMIA (2005) 148 FCR 182

statement of decision and reasons

application for review

1. This is an application for review of decisions made by a delegate of the Minister for Home Affairs on 31 August 2022 to refuse to grant the applicants Skilled Nominated (Permanent) visas under s 65 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (the Act).

2. The applicants applied for the visas on 19 April 2021. The delegate refused to grant the visa on the basis that the first named applicant (now referred to as the applicant) did not satisfy cl 190.216(3) of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth) (the Regulations) because the health criteria in Public Interest Criterion (‘PIC’) 4005 of Schedule 4 to the Regulations was not met.

3. The applicants were represented in relation to the review by the named representative.

4. For the following reasons, the Tribunal has concluded that the matter should be remitted for reconsideration.

   consideration of Claims and evidence

5. The issue in this review is whether the visa applicants meet Public Interest Criterion (PIC) 4005 as required by the criteria for the grant of the visa. Public Interest Criterion 4005, as it applies to this case, is extracted in the attachment to this decision. It requires the applicants, in certain circumstances, to undergo medical assessment, and to be free of certain diseases or conditions that may impact on the community. The second named applicant in this case has ankylosing spondylitis.

   Is the applicant free from the relevant diseases or conditions (PIC 4005(1)(a), (b), (c))?

6. Public interest criterion 4005(1)(a) and (b) require the applicant to be free from tuberculosis and free from a disease or condition that is, or may result in the applicant being, a threat to public health in Australia or a danger to the Australian community.

7. Public interest criterion 4005(1)(c) requires the applicant be free from a disease or condition which would be likely to require health care or community services or which would meet the medical criteria for provision of a community service during the specified period; and  provision of the health care or community services (regardless of whether it will actually be used in connection with the applicant) would be likely to: result in a significant cost to the Australian community in the areas of health care and community services; or prejudice access of an Australian citizen or permanent resident to health care or community services. For specified temporary visas, certain specified health care and community service are excluded from this consideration: PIC 4005(3).

8. As the applicants in this case have applied for a permanent visa, the exclusion provision in PIC 4005(3) does not apply.

9. In determining whether a person meets PIC 4005(1)(a), (b) or (c) reg 2.25A requires the Tribunal to seek the opinion of a Medical Officer of the Commonwealth (MOC) unless: the application is for a temporary visa and there is no information known to Immigration to the effect that the person may not meet those requirements; or the application is for a permanent visa and made from a specified country and there is no information known to Immigration to the effect that the person may not meet those requirements.  Where an opinion of a MOC is required, the Tribunal must take it be correct: reg 2.25A(3).

   Is a MOC opinion required?

10. On the evidence before the Tribunal, a MOC opinion is required. As noted above, the Tribunal must take the MOC opinion as correct, but must first be satisfied the MOC has applied the correct test in forming the opinion: Robinson v MIMIA (2005) 148 FCR 182 and Ramlu v MIMIA [2005] FMCA 1735. That is, the opinion must identify the medical condition to which the public interest criterion has been applied, and the form or level of the condition suffered by the applicant, and the MOC must have applied the statutory criteria by reference to a hypothetical person who suffers from that form or level of the condition.

11. When this matter was before the delegate, there were two MOC opinions, the first of which was dated 27 October 2021 and the second dated 18 July 2022. The MOCs found that the second named applicant does not meet the health requirement.

12. On review, the applicants advised that they wished to obtain a further opinion. Additional information was submitted, which included the following: letter to the MOC from the first named applicant; letter from Dr Clemens dated 5 September 2022; Dr Clemens suggested medication schedule dated 12 April 2022; letter from Dr George Agborchi dated 14 November 2022; letter from Nevine Eskander, physiotherapist, dated 11 November 2022; email from ASIF dated 22 November 2022.

13. On 12 December 2022, a Review MOC gave an opinion that the second named applicant meets PIC 4005 and meets the health requirement for a permanent stay in Australia.

14. Accordingly, based on the opinion of the MOC, the second named applicant satisfies public interest criterion 4005.

15. Given the findings above, the appropriate course is for the Tribunal to remit the matter to the Minister for reconsideration of the remaining criteria for the visa.

    decision

16. The Tribunal remits the application for Skilled Nominated (Permanent) visas for reconsideration, with the direction that the first named applicant meets the following criteria for a Subclass 190:

    ·PIC 4005 for the purposes of cl 190.216(3) of Schedule 2 to the Regulations.

    Wan Shum
    Member

    
    
    

    ATTACHMENT

    Migration Regulations 1994

    Schedule 4

    4005(1)         The applicant:

    (aa)if the applicant is in a class of persons specified by the Minister in an instrument in writing for this paragraph:

    (i)must undertake any medical assessment specified in the instrument; and

    (ii)must be assessed by the person specified in the instrument;

    unless a Medical Officer of the Commonwealth decides otherwise; and

    (ab)must comply with any request by a Medical Officer of the Commonwealth to undertake a medical assessment; and

    (a)is free from tuberculosis; and

    (b)is free from a disease or condition that is, or may result in the applicant being, a threat to public health in Australia or a danger to the Australian community; and

    (c)is free from a disease or condition in relation to which:

    (i)a person who has it would be likely to:

    (A)require health care or community services; or

    (B)meet the medical criteria for the provision of a community service;

    during the period described in subclause (2); and

    (ii)the provision of the health care or community services would be likely to:

    (A)result in a significant cost to the Australian community in the areas of health care and community services; or

    (B)prejudice the access of an Australian citizen or permanent resident to health care or community services;

    regardless of whether the health care or community services will actually be used in connection with the applicant; and

    (d)if the applicant is a person from whom a Medical Officer of the Commonwealth has requested a signed undertaking to present himself or herself to a health authority in the State or Territory of intended residence in Australia for a follow-up medical assessment — has provided the undertaking.

    (2)For subparagraph (1) (c) (i), the period is:

    (a)for an application for a permanent visa — the period commencing when the application is made; or

    (b)for an application for a temporary visa:

    (i)the period for which the Minister intends to grant the visa; or

    (ii)if the visa is of a subclass specified by the Minister in an instrument in writing for this subparagraph — the period commencing when the application is made.

    (3)If:

    (a)the applicant applies for a temporary visa; and

    (b)the subclass being applied for is not specified by the Minister in an instrument in writing made for subparagraph (2) (b) (ii);

    the reference in sub-subparagraph (1) (c) (ii) (A) to health care and community services does not include the health care and community services specified by the Minister in an instrument in writing made for this subclause.