Issa (Migration)

This matter concerned an appeal by the applicant against a decision to affirm the refusal of a Contributory Aged Parent (Temporary) (Class UU) visa, subclass 884. The core of the dispute revolved around whether the applicant met Public Interest Criterion (PIC) 4005, which mandates that applicants be free from certain diseases or conditions. The decision was made by a Member of the Tribunal, Helen Kroger.

The Tribunal was required to determine whether the applicant satisfied PIC 4005(1)(c), specifically whether the applicant was free from a disease or condition that would likely require significant health care or community services, or prejudice access to such services for Australian citizens or permanent residents, resulting in substantial cost to the community. This determination necessitated considering the opinion of a Medical Officer of the Commonwealth (MOC), which, if validly made, must be taken as correct by the Tribunal.

The Tribunal found that the MOC opinion dated 14 January 2020 was validly made, as it identified the relevant medical condition, specified its form and level, and applied the statutory criteria by reference to a hypothetical person with that condition. Despite submissions and evidence from the applicant's son and a specialist nephrologist suggesting that alternative home-based treatments could be provided without disadvantaging the Australian community, the Tribunal was bound by the MOC's opinion. Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that the applicant did not satisfy PIC 4005(1)(c).

As the primary applicant failed to meet the requirements of PIC 4005, and by extension the secondary applicant also failed to meet the relevant criteria, the Tribunal affirmed the decisions under review. The outcome was that the Contributory Aged Parent (Temporary) (Class UU) visas were not granted to the applicants.