KUMAR (Migration)

KUMAR (Migration) [2018] AATA 4500 (6 September 2018)
DECISION RECORD
DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division
APPLICANT:  Mr Deepak KUMAR
CASE NUMBER:  1721089
DIBP REFERENCE(S):  BCC2017/3098073
MEMBER:Simone Burford
DATE:6 September 2018
PLACE OF DECISION:  Perth
DECISION:The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicant a Medical Treatment (Visitor) (Class UB) visa.
Statement made on 06 September 2018 at 3:27pm

CATCHWORDS
MIGRATION – Medical Treatment (Visitor) (Class UB) visa – Subclass 602 (Medical Treatment) – genuine temporary entrant – psychological condition – no current plans of treatment – age requirement – family in Australia – extensive history of non-compliance – primary purpose to stay with family – applied for permanent visas – self-treatment – decision under review affirmed

LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958 (Cth), s 65
Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth), Schedule 2 cls 602.212, 602.215
Any references appearing in square brackets indicate that information has been omitted from this decision pursuant to section 378 of the Migration Act 1958 and replaced with generic information.

STATEMENT OF DECISION AND REASONS
APPLICATION FOR REVIEW

This is an application for review of a decision made by a delegate of the Minister for Immigration on 31 August 2017 to refuse to grant the applicant a Medical Treatment (Visitor) (Class UB) visa under s.65 of the Migration Act 1958 (the Act).
The applicant applied for the visa on 25 August 2017. At that time, Class UB contained one subclass, Subclass 602 (Medical Treatment). The criteria for the grant of this visa are set out in Part 602 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994 (the Regulations).
The delegate refused to grant the applicant the visa because the delegate was not satisfied that the applicant genuinely intends to stay temporarily in Australia the purpose for which the visa is granted. Further the delegate was not satisfied that the applicant claims in circumstances where sufficiently compelling or exceptional to warrant departure from normal policy and legal requirements of the genuine as a criterion.
On 20 July 2018 the applicant was invited to attend a hearing on the application to be held on 22 August 2018 at 2:00 pm in the Tribunal’s Perth office. On 21 August 2018 the applicant emailed the Tribunal and advised that:
“I want to inform you that im [sic] not able to attend my hearing which is on 22/08/2018..due to im [sic] not in Perth and im [sic] in Adelaide for my work. Wont [sic] be back till coming Monday… plzzz [sic] let me know wat [sic] I can do… Thank u [sic]…’
The Tribunal contacted the applicant by telephone on 21 August 2018 and invited the applicant to attend the scheduled hearing by telephone.
The applicant appeared before the Tribunal by telephone on 22 August 2018 to give evidence and present arguments. At the hearing the applicant was given a further seven days to submit information in support of his application following the hearing. No further information was submitted by the applicant.
For the following reasons, the Tribunal has decided that decision under review should be affirmed.
CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE
The Subclass 602 Medical Treatment visa is for persons seeking to visit or remain in Australia temporarily for medical treatment or related purposes.
The issue in this case is whether the applicant genuinely intends to stay temporarily in Australia for the purpose for which the visa is granted.
Evidence
The applicant filed the following documents with the Department of Immigration and Border Protection in support of his application:
·     a statutory declaration signed by the applicant and dated 23 August 2017 regarding information provided to his psychologist Mr Singh;
·     a letter from Lathlain Doctor’s Surgery by a Dr Chang, dated 23 August 2017, referring the applicant to Mr Singh for assessment and treatment;
·     a Psychological Assessment and Treatment Plan dated 23 August 2017 from Mr Singh;
·     an invoice from Lathlain Doctor’s Surgery dated 23 August 2017;
·     a Form 1507 – ‘Evidence of intended medical treatment’ which is signed by Dr Chang and dated 24 August 2017;
·     a statutory declaration signed by the applicant in support of the application on the
24 August 2017; and
·     a copy of the applicant’s Indian passport.
In addition, the applicant gave oral testimony at the hearing. No additional material was submitted to the Tribunal.
The form 1507 signed by the medical practitioner, Dr Chang, indicated that the applicant suffers from ‘anxiety/depression’ and is being treated with specified medication and psychological counselling provided by Mr Singh.
The report from Mr Singh indicates a diagnosis of ‘clinical symptoms.. consistent with the symptoms of severe anxiety and depression as per DSM V (same as diagnosed by his doctor)’. The treatment plan recommended by Mr Singh is as follows:
‘cognitive behavioural therapy or mindfulness, relaxation techniques, deep breathing techniques, Psycho education for dealing with irrational thinking.’
The report indicates that the approximate number of psychological treatments as required would be 20.
The Tribunal notes that the report of Mr Singh recommends that Mr Kumar ‘should seek help from his course coordinator and counsellor to get the full help and support in this matter from his education provider’. The Tribunal notes that Mr Kumar gave evidence that he last studied in Australia in 2012. The report was written in 2017. Mr Kumar had no explanation as to what Mr Singh was referring to in this recommendation or why he would have made such a recommendation in the applicant’s circumstances.
When asked whether arrangements for treatment had been made the applicant indicated that he had the treatment plan.
The applicant indicated he last saw Dr Chang around six months ago. When asked how often frequently he saw Dr Chang prior to that he told the Tribunal it was three or four times. When asked how long it was between visits he indicated he had seen Dr Chang monthly. He did not provide any evidence of these visits. He indicated he did not have any current appointments to see Dr Chang. He continues to take medication as prescribed by Dr Chang. However, he indicated that his partner is also taking the same medication and they share it if he hasn’t had an appointment with Dr Chang recently.
The applicant indicated that he last saw Mr Singh a couple of months ago. He indicated he had seen Mr Singh three or four times but couldn’t afford to continue to see him. He indicated that each time he saw Mr Singh he gave him the same exercises to do and that he and his partner had decided they could do that themselves as they had a lot of other costs to meet. He indicated that if he has to see Mr Singh he could see him in two or three weeks. He indicated that he does not have any current appointments to see Mr Singh.
The applicant indicated he is meeting his own medical costs however other than the one receipt on the file he had no evidence as to how or when the costs were being met. Further the Tribunal notes that the applicant indicated he had not undertaken treatment recently with Mr Singh due to the cost. When the Tribunal pointed out that the costs must be met by the applicant under the arrangements for this visa he indicated that he would be able to meet the costs with the support of his partner.
Migration history
The applicant is a 30-year-old Indian national. The applicant gave oral testimony that he was last in India about eight or nine years ago, around 2011. He indicated that his mother, father and brother still live in India. He has a partner who is a New Zealand citizen with whom he has one biological child and one stepchild. His partner and children are currently residing with him in Australia.
The delegate’s decision detailed the applicant’s migration history in Australia as follows:
·     The applicant arrived in Australia on 13 May 2008 on a student visa subclass 573, valid for stay until 2 September 2010. In early 2009 the applicant withdrew from his course of study.
· On 30 September 2010 the applicant was granted a student visa subclass 572 onshore. On 6 October 2011 the visa was cancelled under section 116 of the Migration Act on grounds he failed to comply with the visa conditions. On 6 October 2011 he was granted the first of a number of the bridging visas on condition that he would depart Australia.
·     The applicant appealed to the Migration Review Tribunal (MRT) and on 28 November 2012 the MRT affirmed the decision to cancel his student visa. On 2 February 2013 the applicant requested ministerial intervention. On 10 December 2013 the Minister refused to consider his request.
·     On 16 January 2014 the applicant lodged a [permanent] visa application which was [invalidated].
·     On 29 April 2014 the applicant lodged a [permanent] visa application. On 27 March 2015 the application was refused and on 30 March 2016 the Tribunal affirmed this decision. On 26 April 2016 the applicant appealed to the Federal Court and on 29 June 2017 the appeal was dismissed.
·     On 30 March 2017 the applicant was located and found working in breach of his visa conditions.
·     On 24 July 2017 the applicant again requested ministerial intervention which was denied on 7 August2017.
· On 18 August 2017 the applicant attempt to lodge a visitor visa application onshore. The application was invalid due to section 48 of the Migration Act.
· On 21 August 2017 the applicant attempted to lodge a New Zealand (Family Relationship) visa subclass 461 based on a spouse relationship with Chayna Te Hara Matthews. The application was invalid due to section 48 of the Migration Act.
·     On 25 August 2017 the applicant lodged a medical treatment visa application onshore on the grounds of anxiety and depression.
·     On 30 August 2017 the applicant absconded from an interview with departmental officers. At the time of the delegate’s decision he did not hold a visa and was unlawfully in Australia.
This account of the applicant’s visa history was put to him at the hearing and he confirmed that while he could not recall the reasons why his student visa was cancelled or the reasons some of his visa applications were found to be invalid the account of this visa history was correct.
Is the applicant unfit to depart Australia?
Clause 602.212, as extracted in the attachment to this decision, requires the applicant to meet one of the seven alternative sub criteria in cl.602.212(2)-(8). These relate to the basis for which the stay in Australia is required. Relevantly to this matter, cl.602.212(6) relates to an applicant being medically unfit to depart Australia. It requires that the applicant:
·is in Australia
·has turned 50
·has applied for a permanent visa in Australia and appears to have met all the criteria for that visa other than the health criteria but has been refused the visa, and
·is medically unfit to depart Australia due to a permanent or deteriorating disease or condition evidenced in writing by a Medical Officer of the Commonwealth.
For clause 602.212(6) to be met the applicant must meet all of the requirements in 602.212(6)(a)-(f).
The Tribunal notes that the applicant was born on 5 April 1988. He is 30 years old. Therefore the Tribunal finds that the applicant does not meet cl. 602.212(6)(b). In addition, there is no evidence to suggest that the applicant has applied for a permanent visa in Australia and appears to have met all the criteria for the visa other than the health criteria but has been refused the visa: cl.602.212(6)(c)-(e). Further there is no evidence that the applicant is medically unfit to depart Australia due to a permanent or deteriorating disease or condition evidenced in writing by a Medical Officer of the Commonwealth: cl.602.212(6)(f).
Given the above findings, the requirements in cl.602.212(6) are not all met.
Does the applicant have a genuine intention to stay temporarily for the visa purpose?
Clause 602.215 requires that the applicant genuinely intends to stay temporarily in Australia for the purpose for which the visa is granted. The Tribunal must have regard to whether the applicant has complied substantially with the conditions of the last held substantive visa or any subsequent bridging visa, as well as the applicant’s intention to comply with the conditions to which the Subclass 602 visa would be subject and any other relevant matter. This requirement will not apply if the applicant is medically unfit to depart Australia as described in cl.602.212(6).
The Tribunal has found that the applicant does not meet the requirements of cl. 602.212(6) and is not medically unfit to depart Australia. Therefore the requirement that the applicant genuinely intends to stay temporarily in Australia for the purpose for which the visa is granted applies.
As noted above, in assessing this the Tribunal must have regard to whether the applicant has complied substantially with the conditions of the last held substantive visa or any subsequent bridging visa, as well as the applicant’s intention to comply with the conditions to which the Subclass 602 visa would be subject and any other relevant matter: cl.602.215(1)(a) to (c).
The applicant told the Tribunal that he is currently on a bridging visa. Departmental records indicate that this visa was granted on 9 May 2018. His previous bridging visa expired on 28 August 2017. The Tribunal notes that the applicant is working and has said his visa allows him to work. The applicant indicated he applied for this visa because it was difficult to support his children when he did not have a visa and was unable to work legally. The Tribunal does not have any information before it to suggest the applicant is not meeting the conditions of his current bridging visa. On the basis of the information before it, the Tribunal finds the applicant is meeting the conditions of his current bridging visa and places some weight on this.
The Tribunal also considered whether the applicant intends to comply with the conditions to which the visa would be subject. The Tribunal notes that the conditions of this visa would include conditions that the applicant not work and a three month limit on study: cl.602.611(3). The applicant stated that he would comply with the conditions of the medical visa. When the Tribunal pointed out that the conditions of the visa would include not working the applicant indicated he would rely on his partner to work and that he would look after his children. The applicant did not provide any other evidence to support his assertion that he would meet the conditions of the medical visa.
The Tribunal formed the view that the applicant may not have been aware that the medical visa would not allow him to work prior to the Tribunal highlighting this at the hearing. In any event, the Tribunal found the statement that he would not work and could be supported by his wife to be inconsistent with the evidence he gave that he had applied for his current bridging visa because he needed to work to support his family and to his account of the difficulties they had encountered when he did not have a valid visa.
Further, while the applicant has asserted he will comply with the conditions of this visa he has an extensive visa history of non-compliance with visa conditions. This history, which is discussed further below, weighs against finding that he intends to comply with the conditions of this visa.
In assessing whether the applicant genuinely intends to stay temporarily in Australia for the purpose for which the visa is granted, the Tribunal has also considered whether the applicant intends to undertake medical treatment while on the visa.
The Tribunal asked why he had applied for the medical visa the applicant indicated that he had ongoing depression and was afraid he would lose his kids and partner and he couldn’t leave his children here by themselves as they would only have his partner. He indicated his partner was also suffering from depression and would be very difficult for her if he had to leave the country. When asked about his future intentions, the applicant indicated that he was applying for permanent residency to New Zealand and hoped to receive his permanent residency soon. He indicated that his partner was free to remain in Australia but he was not and this made future arrangements for them difficult.
The Tribunal raised a concern with the applicant that he indicated that he had decided to stop seeing Mr Singh because he felt he could continue with the treatments that have been recommended on his own. This raised a concern about whether he genuinely intended to receive treatment in Australia. It also raised the question as to why he would be unable to continue his own treatment in India or elsewhere, for example in New Zealand. The applicant indicated that he couldn’t go anywhere else for treatment because his treatment was his kids and that if he left his kids he would have bad depression. The applicant later indicated that he could receive treatment in New Zealand and might do that in the event his family eventually went to New Zealand.
The Tribunal also considered the applicant’s evidence that he was not currently seeing either of his treating practitioners and did not appear to have any intention to do so in the future. He provided vague evidence about how often he had seen his practitioners since applying for the visa and obtaining the treatment plan and was unable to provide documentary evidence to support his claims to have seen Dr Chang and Mr Singh at all in the period of almost a year since the application was lodged.
The Tribunal notes that on his own evidence the applicant does not have any current plans to see either his GP or treating psychologist. The applicant told the Tribunal he and his partner had formed the view that he could treat himself based on the exercises given to him by his psychologist. On the basis of the applicant’s evidence the Tribunal formed the view that the applicant did not intend to undertake or seek medical treatment while on the visa.
The Tribunal has considered the applicant’s personal circumstances that would encourage him to return to his home country at the end of his stay. The applicant told the Tribunal that he has a mother, father and brother in India. However, he told the Tribunal that all of his family were effectively in Australia as his partner and children were here. The applicant told the Tribunal that he has no property in India however his father owns property in India. The applicant indicated that he has never worked in India as he left in his late teens. The applicant indicated repeatedly that he desired to stay in Australia with his partner and children. He did not indicate any inclination to return to India and gave evidence that would be very difficult for him to return to India. Tribunal also notes that the applicant has made two [permanent] visa applications in Australia one of which was invalid and one of which was unsuccessful including on appeal to the Federal Court. When asked about his [permanent] visa applications the applicant indicated he had fears about returning to India.
The applicant indicated that he had applied for permanent residency in New Zealand and expected to have that approved. However, when asked why he had not travelled to New Zealand earlier he was unable to provide an answer. He was also unable to say when or whether he had future plans to travel to New Zealand.
While the applicant gave evidence that he may move to New Zealand at some time in the future and admitted he has family ties in India, the applicant’s evidence was that his family was in Australia and it would be difficult to return to India. Further, he indicated he wished to stay in Australia to remain with his family and did not provide any evidence to support his suggestion that they may move to New Zealand. This weighs against a finding that the applicant genuinely intends to stay temporarily in Australia for the purpose for which the visa was granted.

The Tribunal considered the applicant’s general visa history in assessing whether the applicant genuinely intended to stay temporarily in Australia. The Tribunal put to the applicant that according to his visa history he spent most of the past 10 years in Australia. Further he had indicated in his evidence that he wished to stay in Australia in order to support his partner and children. This suggested that he wished to remain in Australia primarily to be with his family and that was not the purpose of this visa. The applicant indicated that he understood that.
The applicant’s last held substantive visa was the student subclass 572 visa which he was granted on 30 September 2010. According to the delegate’s decision that visa was cancelled under s.116 of the Act on 6 October 2011 on grounds the applicant failed to comply with the visa conditions. On 28 November 2012 the Migration Review Tribunal affirmed the decision to cancel the applicant’s student visa. At the hearing the applicant confirmed that his student visa was cancelled but he couldn’t remember the reasons for the cancellation. The Tribunal is satisfied that the applicant’s last substantive visa was cancelled due to non-compliance with visa conditions. The Tribunal places weight on this in determining whether the applicant genuinely intends to stay temporarily in Australia for the purpose for which the visa is granted.
The Tribunal put to the applicant that according to the delegate’s decision Departmental records indicated that on multiple occasions he had disengaged with the Department and remained unlawfully in Australia. He indicated that he only remembered a couple of months when he was unlawfully in Australia because he couldn’t leave his kids and it was hard from to leave his kids behind. He indicated that he eventually went to the Department to get a bridging visa because it had been difficult for him to live in fear whilst here unlawfully.
The Tribunal noted that the delegate’s decision indicated he had overstayed visas on numerous occasions and routinely breached visa conditions and had remained unlawfully in Australia for numerous periods of time. The applicant indicated that this was only because he had a three-year-old and he it was hard and he couldn’t do anything else because of his responsibilities for his child.
The Tribunal put to the applicant that the delegate’s decision indicated that he had repeatedly indicated that he would not depart from Australia. The applicant indicated that he had never said that he wouldn’t depart. The applicant said that he would depart Australia but that it was a matter of time and he just wanted to get treatment. He was worried about his partner as they had been through a lot of depression and they were worried what would happen to the kids.
The Tribunal indicated the applicant that it was concerned that the applicant had applied for the medical visa with an intention to stay in Australia. The applicant did not offer any response to this. The Tribunal also put to the applicant that he did not appear to be receiving ongoing treatment or have any plan for future treatment which would support an assertion that he genuinely intended to stay in Australia temporarily for the purpose for which the visa was granted. The applicant did not have any response. The Tribunal also put to the applicant that it was concerned that he did not genuinely intend to stay in Australia temporarily. The applicant did not have any further response to this.
As noted above the applicant’s own evidence was that he does not have any current plans to see either his GP or treating psychologist. The applicant told the Tribunal that he and his partner had formed the view that he could treat himself based on the exercises given to him by his psychologist. He has no appointments to see either his GP or psychologist in the future though he indicated he could if he needed to. Further, while the applicant indicated he could travel to New Zealand in the future he had no current plans to travel to New Zealand or India and had indicated that he wishes to stay in Australia with his family. Further, the applicant’s visa history includes numerous occasions where he has failed to comply with visa conditions.
In addition, the applicant stressed repeatedly in the hearing his desire to remain in Australia with his family and the difficulties which they would suffer if he were to leave. On the applicant’s evidence it was the risk of removal from Australia which had given rise to the depression which had caused him to seek medical treatment and it is staying with his family in Australia which is the treatment he is seeking through applying for the medical visa. Based on his evidence and his visa history, the Tribunal has formed the view that the applicant does not intend to engage in medical treatment in Australia and does not intend to remain in Australia temporarily.
On the evidence provided the Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant genuinely intends to stay temporarily in Australia for the purpose for which the visa is granted.
Given the above findings, cl.602.215 is not met.
Based on the findings above, the applicant does not meet the requirements for the grant of the visa. The decision under review must be affirmed.
DECISION
The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicant a Medical Treatment (Visitor) (Class UB) visa.
Simone Burford
Member

ATTACHMENT
Migration Regulations 1994
Schedule 2
602.212 (1)     The requirements in one of subclauses (2) to (8) are met.
Medical treatment
(2)All of the following requirements are met:
(a)     the applicant seeks to obtain medical treatment (including consultation), other than treatment for the purposes of surrogate motherhood, in Australia;
(b)    arrangements have been concluded to carry out the treatment;
(c)     if the treatment is an organ transplant:
(i)the donor of the relevant organ is accompanying the applicant to Australia; or
(ii)all requisite arrangements to effect the donation of the organ have been concluded in Australia;
(d)    the applicant is free from a disease or condition that is, or may result in the applicant being, a threat to public health in Australia or a danger to the Australian community;
(e)     arrangements have been concluded for the payment of all costs related to the treatment and all other expenses of the applicant’s stay in Australia, including the expenses of any person accompanying the applicant;
(f)     either:
(i) the payment of those costs will not be a charge on the Commonwealth, a State, a Territory or a public authority in Australia; or
(ii)evidence is produced that the relevant government authority has approved the payment of those costs.
Organ donor
(3)All of the following requirements are met:
(a)     the applicant seeks to donate an organ for transplant in Australia;
(b)    if the organ recipient is also an applicant, the requirements described in subclause (2) are met in relation to the organ recipient;
(c)     the applicant satisfies public interest criterion 4005;
(d)    arrangements have been concluded for the payment of all costs related to the organ transplant and all other expenses of the applicant’s stay in Australia, including the expenses of any person accompanying the applicant;
(e)     either:
(i)the payment of those costs will not be a charge on the Commonwealth, a State, a Territory or a public authority in Australia; or
(ii)evidence is produced that the relevant government authority has approved the payment of those costs.
Support person
(4)All of the following requirements are met:
(a)     the applicant seeks to give emotional and other support to an applicant in relation to whom:
(i)the requirements described in subclause (2) or (3) are met; or
(ii)the requirements described in subclause 675.212(2) or (3) are met; or
(iii)the requirements described in subclause 685.212(2) or (3) are met;
(b)    the person to whom the applicant is to provide support holds:
(i)a Subclass 602 visa on the basis that the requirements described in subclause (2) or (3) have been met; or
(ii)a Subclass 675 (Medical Treatment (Short Stay)) visa on the basis that the requirements described in subclause 675.212(2) or (3) have been met; or
(iii)a Subclass 685 (Medical Treatment (Long Stay)) visa on the basis that the requirements described in subclause 685.212(2) or (3) have been met;
(c)     the applicant satisfies public interest criterion 4005.
Western Province of Papua New Guinea
(5)All of the following requirements are met:
(a)     the applicant is a citizen of Papua New Guinea;
(b)    the applicant resides in the Western Province of Papua New Guinea;
(c)     the Department of the government of Queensland that is responsible for health has approved the medical evacuation of the applicant to, or treatment of the applicant in, a hospital in Queensland.
Unfit to depart
(6) All of the following requirements are met:
(a)     the applicant is in Australia;
(b)    the applicant has turned 50;
(c)     the applicant has applied for a permanent visa while in Australia;
(d)    the applicant appears to have met all the criteria for the grant of that visa, other than public interest criteria related to health;
(e)     the applicant has been refused the visa;
(f)     the applicant is medically unfit to depart Australia due to a permanent or deteriorating disease or health condition, as evidenced by a written statement to that effect from a Medical Officer of the Commonwealth.
Financial hardship
(7)All of the following requirements are met:
(a)     one of the following applies:
(i)the requirements described in paragraphs (2)(a) to (c) are met in relation to the applicant;
(ii)the requirements described in paragraphs (3)(a) and (b) are met in relation to the applicant;
(iii)the requirements described in paragraphs (4)(a) and (b) are met in relation to the applicant;
(iv)the requirements described in subclause (5) are met in relation to the applicant;
(v)the requirements described in paragraphs (6)(a) to (e) are met in relation to the applicant;
(b)    the applicant is in Australia;
(c)     the applicant holds:
(i)a Subclass 602 visa; or
(ii)a Subclass 675 (Medical Treatment (Short Stay)) visa; or
(iii)a Subclass 685 (Medical Treatment (Long Stay)) visa;
(d)    the applicant is suffering financial hardship as a result of changes in the applicant’s circumstances after entering Australia;
(e)     the applicant, or a member of the applicant’s immediate family, is likely to become a charge on the Commonwealth, a State, a Territory or a public authority in Australia;
(f)     the applicant, or a member of the applicant’s immediate family, cannot leave Australia for reasons beyond his or her control;
(g)    the applicant has compelling personal reasons to work in Australia;
(h)    the applicant satisfies public interest criterion 4005.
Compelling personal reasons
(8)All of the following requirements are met:
(a)     one of the following applies:
(i)the requirements described in paragraphs (2)(a) to (c) are met in relation to the applicant;
(ii)the requirements described in paragraphs (3)(a) and (b) are met in relation to the applicant;
(iii)the requirements described in paragraphs (4)(a) and (b) are met in relation to the applicant;
(iv)the requirements described in subclause (5) are met in relation to the applicant;
(v)the requirements described in paragraphs (6)(a) to (e) are met in relation to the applicant;
(b)    the applicant is in Australia;
(c)     the applicant has compelling personal reasons for the grant of the visa;
(d)    the applicant satisfies public interest criterion 4005, other than paragraph 4005(1)(c).

[2018] AATA 4500

6 September 2018

Key Legal Topics

Areas of Law

Immigration

Administrative Law

Legal Concepts

Judicial Review

Procedural Fairness

Statutory Construction

Jurisdiction

Remedies