Grayson (Migration)

This matter concerned an appeal by the applicants, Mr and Mrs Grayson, against a decision of the Department of Immigration and Border Protection to refuse their application for a Contributory Parent (Temporary) (Class UT) visa, subclass 173. The central dispute revolved around whether the applicants met the health criteria prescribed by Public Interest Criterion (PIC) 4005, specifically concerning a progressive medical condition diagnosed in one of the applicants. The case was heard by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal.

The Tribunal was required to determine whether the visa applicants were free from certain diseases or conditions as stipulated by PIC 4005. This involved assessing whether the applicants posed a threat to public health or the Australian community, or if their condition would likely necessitate health or community services resulting in significant cost to the Australian community or prejudice access for Australian citizens and permanent residents. The Tribunal also had to consider whether a Medical Officer of the Commonwealth (MOC) opinion was required and, if so, to treat such an opinion as correct.

The Tribunal reasoned that, despite submissions regarding the family's ability to meet treatment costs, the presence of Advanced Multiple Myeloma in one applicant necessitated a MOC opinion under regulation 2.25A. The Department had previously sought such an opinion, which indicated that while one applicant met the health requirements, the other did not. As a MOC opinion was required and had been sought, the Tribunal was bound to accept it as correct in determining whether the health criteria were met. Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that the applicants did not meet the health requirements for the visa.