Islam v Minister for Immigration

The applicant, Islam, sought judicial review of a decision by the Minister for Immigration concerning a Skilled (Residence) (Class VB) visa. The core of the dispute revolved around the validity and application of a regulation that required an administrative decision-maker to treat the opinion of a Medical Officer of the Commonwealth as correct when assessing whether an applicant met certain visa criteria. The matter came before Judge Antoni Lucev of the Federal Court of Australia.

The legal issues before the Court were whether Regulation 2.25A(3) of the Migration Regulations was a valid exercise of the power conferred by section 505 of the Migration Act, and whether this regulation, which mandated that a Medical Officer's opinion be taken as correct, bound not only the initial decision-maker but also the Migration Review Tribunal when it reviewed the delegate's decision. The applicant also contended that the Tribunal failed to conduct a proper, genuine, or realistic inquiry and did not take into account relevant considerations, thereby committing jurisdictional error.

The Court found that section 505 of the Migration Act specifically empowers the Minister to make regulations requiring that opinions from specified third persons, such as a Medical Officer, be either had regard to or treated as correct for the purposes of assessing visa criteria. The Court held that Regulation 2.25A(3), by providing that the opinion of the Medical Officer is to be taken as correct, was a valid use of the power under section 505(b)(ii) and did not exceed the regulation-making power. Furthermore, drawing on the Full Court of the Federal Court's decisions in *Maman* and *Blair*, the Court determined that the Tribunal was also bound by Regulation 2.25A(3) to treat the Medical Officer's opinion as correct, just as the delegate was. This interpretation meant that the Tribunal could not obtain a further opinion or disregard the existing one, even if it conflicted with other medical evidence.

Consequently, the Court concluded that the applicant's argument that the Tribunal ought to have had regard to other medical opinions was without merit, as the regulation specifically directed that the Medical Officer's opinion be taken as correct. The Court's reasoning, based on the statutory interpretation of section 505 and established case law, disposed of the applicant's primary grounds for judicial review.