Chikerema (Migration)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal considered the case of Mr. Micheal Chikerema, who sought an Employer Nomination (Permanent) visa (Subclass 186) under the Temporary Residence Transition stream. The primary dispute concerned whether the visa applicant and his daughter, Ms. Raisa Anotida Chikerema, met Public Interest Criterion (PIC) 4007, which relates to health requirements for visa applicants.

The legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicant, Mr. Chikerema, satisfied PIC 4007, specifically sub-subparagraph PIC 4007(1)(c)(ii)(A). This criterion requires that the provision of health care or community services for a condition would not be likely to prejudice the access of an Australian citizen or permanent resident to such services. The applicant's daughter had been assessed by a Medical Officer of the Commonwealth as not satisfying this criterion due to severe cerebral palsy, which meant the applicant, as the primary visa holder, also failed to meet the visa requirements under sub-regulation 186.224(1).

The Tribunal affirmed the delegate's decision not to grant the visa. It reasoned that the applicant's daughter's medical condition meant that PIC 4007 was not satisfied. While PIC 4007(2) allows for a waiver of the health criteria under certain circumstances, the Tribunal found that the conditions for such a waiver were not met in this instance. Specifically, the Tribunal noted that the secondary applicants were not members of the family unit of a person who had been granted a Subclass 186 visa based on satisfying the primary criteria, thus clause 186.311 was not satisfied.

Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the Employer Nomination (Permanent) visas to the applicants.