Hipolito (Migration)
Case
•
[2018] AATA 5390
•22 November 2018
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Hipolito (Migration) [2018] AATA 5390
[2018] AATA 5390
22 November 2018
CaseChat Overview and Summary
This matter concerned an appeal to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal regarding the refusal of a Regional Employer Nomination (Permanent) visa (Subclass 187). The applicant, Master Alan Lacbawan Hipolito, was a migrating family member of Mr Hipolito, who held a Subclass 457 visa and had been nominated for the permanent visa. The core of the dispute centred on whether Alan met Public Interest Criterion (PIC) 4007, specifically concerning his health.
The Tribunal was required to determine if Alan met PIC 4007(1)(c), which mandates that an applicant be free from a disease or condition that would likely require health or community services resulting in significant cost to the Australian community or prejudice access to such services for Australian citizens or permanent residents. The Tribunal also considered whether the waiver provision under PIC 4007(2) should apply, which allows for the waiver of this criterion if granting the visa would be unlikely to result in undue cost to the Australian community or undue prejudice to access to services.
The Medical Officer of the Commonwealth assessed Alan as having moderate cognitive impairment due to a global developmental disorder, including mild intellectual impairment and severe language delay. This condition was likely to be permanent and would necessitate special education services, state disability services, carer payment and allowance, disability support pension, and supported accommodation in adulthood, leading to significant costs for the Australian community. The Tribunal found that the delegate had correctly determined that these identified significant costs were not outweighed by mitigating factors or compassionate and compelling circumstances, and therefore the waiver was not granted.
Consequently, as Alan did not satisfy the requirements of PIC 4007, the Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the Regional Employer Nomination (Permanent) visa.
The Tribunal was required to determine if Alan met PIC 4007(1)(c), which mandates that an applicant be free from a disease or condition that would likely require health or community services resulting in significant cost to the Australian community or prejudice access to such services for Australian citizens or permanent residents. The Tribunal also considered whether the waiver provision under PIC 4007(2) should apply, which allows for the waiver of this criterion if granting the visa would be unlikely to result in undue cost to the Australian community or undue prejudice to access to services.
The Medical Officer of the Commonwealth assessed Alan as having moderate cognitive impairment due to a global developmental disorder, including mild intellectual impairment and severe language delay. This condition was likely to be permanent and would necessitate special education services, state disability services, carer payment and allowance, disability support pension, and supported accommodation in adulthood, leading to significant costs for the Australian community. The Tribunal found that the delegate had correctly determined that these identified significant costs were not outweighed by mitigating factors or compassionate and compelling circumstances, and therefore the waiver was not granted.
Consequently, as Alan did not satisfy the requirements of PIC 4007, the Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the Regional Employer Nomination (Permanent) visa.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Immigration
-
Administrative Law
-
Statutory Interpretation
Legal Concepts
-
Judicial Review
-
Procedural Fairness
-
Statutory Construction
-
Remedies
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Citations
Hipolito (Migration) [2018] AATA 5390
Cases Citing This Decision
0
Cases Cited
3
Statutory Material Cited
0
Ramlu v MIMIA
[2005] FMCA 1735
Ramlu v MIMIA
[2005] FMCA 1735
Robinson v MIMIA
[2005] FCA 1626