Jani (Migration)

This matter concerned an application for a Skilled Regional Sponsored (Provisional) (Class SP) visa, subclass 489. The applicant, Ms Hetal Chirag Jani, sought review of a decision concerning her eligibility for the visa. The review was conducted by a member of the Tribunal.

The central legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicant met Public Interest Criterion (PIC) 4005, which requires an applicant to be free from certain diseases or conditions that could pose a threat to public health or result in significant costs to the Australian community. Specifically, the Tribunal had to determine if the applicant was free from tuberculosis, a threat to public health or the Australian community, or a condition likely to require significant health or community services.

The Tribunal's reasoning focused on the requirement under regulation 2.25A of the Migration Regulations 1994 to seek the opinion of a Medical Officer of the Commonwealth (MOC) when assessing PIC 4005, unless specific exceptions applied. The Tribunal found that a MOC opinion was required in this case. While the MOC opinion of 19 April 2022 stated that the applicant met the health requirement for permanent stay, the Tribunal noted that it must be satisfied that the MOC applied the correct legal test in forming their opinion, referencing case law such as *Robinson v MIMIA* and *Ramlu v MIMIA*. The Tribunal concluded that the MOC opinion, as presented, did not sufficiently demonstrate that the correct test had been applied in relation to the applicant's specific condition.

Consequently, the Tribunal remitted the application for reconsideration by the Minister. The Tribunal directed that the first named applicant, Ms Jani, meets PIC 4005 for the purposes of clause 489.226(1) of Schedule 2 to the Regulations, indicating that the health criterion itself was satisfied, but the process for its assessment required further attention.