Gonzales (Migration)
[2020] AATA 2415
•17 June 2020
Gonzales (Migration) [2020] AATA 2415 (17 June 2020)
DECISION RECORD
DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division
APPLICANT: Mr Michael Gonzales
CASE NUMBER: 1813098
DIBP REFERENCE: BCC2018/548068
MEMBER:Rosa Gagliardi
DATE:17 June 2020
DECISION:The Tribunal remits the application for a Visitor (Class FA) visa for reconsideration, with the direction that the applicant meets the following criteria for a Subclass 600 (Visitor) visa:
·PIC 4005(1)(c) for the purposes of cl.cl.600.213 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations.
Statement made on 17 June 2020 at 1:08pm
CATCHWORDS
MIGRATION – Visitor (Class FA) – Subclass 600 (Visitor) – health criteria – free from relevant disease or condition – opinion of medical officer of commonwealth – report provided to tribunal – decision under review remittedLEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958 (Cth), s 65
Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth), r 2.25A(3), Schedule 2, cl 600.213, Schedule 4, criterion 4005(1)(c)CASES
Robinson v MIMIA (2005) 148 FCR 182
Ramlu v MIMIA [2005] FMCA 1735
STATEMENT OF DECISION AND REASONS
APPLICATION FOR REVIEW
This is an application for review of a decision made by a delegate of the Minister for Immigration on 3 May 2018 to refuse to grant the applicant a Visitor (Class FA) visa under s.65 of the Migration Act 1958 (the Act).
The applicant applied for the visa on 1 February 2018. The delegate refused to grant the visa on the basis that the applicant did not satisfy cl.cl.600.213 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994 (the Regulations) because the health criteria in Public Interest Criterion (‘PIC’) 4005 of Schedule 4 to the Regulations was not met.
For the following reasons, the Tribunal has concluded that the matter should be remitted for reconsideration.
CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE
The issue in this review is whether the visa applicant meets 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 applicant, in certain circumstances, to undergo medical assessment, and to be free of certain diseases or conditions that may impact on the community.
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.
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).
Is the applicant free from the relevant diseases or conditions (PIC 4005(1)(a), (b), (c))?
In determining whether a person meets PIC 4005(1)(a), (b) or (c) r.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: r.2.25A(3).
Is a MOC opinion required?
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.
The Tribunal has before it a copy of a Form 884: Opinion of a Review Medical Officer of the Commonwealth which states that the applicant meets the health requirement for the period of 1 year. The opinion is based on available medical and radiological reports.
Accordingly, based on the opinion of the MOC, the applicant satisfies public interest criterion 4005(1)(c).
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
The Tribunal remits the application for a Visitor (Class FA) visa for reconsideration, with the direction that the applicant meets the following criteria for a Subclass 600 (Visitor) visa:
·PIC 4005(1)(c) for the purposes of cl.cl.600.213 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations.
Rosa Gagliardi
MemberATTACHMENT
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.
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Immigration
-
Administrative Law
-
Statutory Interpretation
Legal Concepts
-
Judicial Review
-
Procedural Fairness
-
Statutory Construction
-
Remedies
-
Natural Justice
0
2
0