Chitsa (Migration)

This matter concerned an application for an Employer Nomination (Permanent) visa, specifically a Subclass 186 - Employer Nomination Scheme visa. The primary dispute revolved around Public Interest Criterion (PIC) 4005, which relates to health requirements. The decision was made by a Member of the Tribunal, Karen Synon.

The legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicant met the health criteria stipulated by PIC 4005 of the Migration Regulations 1994. This criterion requires applicants to be free from certain diseases or conditions that could pose a threat to public health, result in significant costs to the Australian community, or prejudice access to health services for Australian citizens and permanent residents.

The Tribunal's reasoning was based on new evidence that had been received. This new evidence satisfied the Tribunal that the applicant met the requirements of PIC 4005. Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that the application should be remitted for further consideration.

The Tribunal remitted the application for the Subclass 186 visa for reconsideration, with a specific direction that the first named applicant was found to meet PIC 4005.