LAROSE (Migration)

This matter concerned an application for an Aged Parent (Residence) (Class BP) visa, subclass 804, made by Mr Larose. The primary decision had indicated that Ms Larose, a secondary applicant, did not meet Public Interest Criterion (PIC) 4005(1)(c)(ii)(A), although Mr Larose did meet this criterion. The Administrative Appeals Tribunal was required to determine whether Mr Larose met PIC 4005 as mandated by the visa application criteria.

The central legal issue before the Tribunal was the assessment of Mr Larose against PIC 4005, specifically subclause (1)(c)(ii)(A). This criterion requires an applicant to be free from a disease or condition where the provision of associated health care or community services would be likely to result in significant cost to the Australian community or prejudice access to such services for Australian citizens or permanent residents. The Tribunal also considered the applicability of PIC 4005(3), which excludes certain health care and community services for temporary visas, noting that this exclusion did not apply to Mr Larose's permanent visa application.

The Tribunal's reasoning was based on the evidence before it, particularly the information contained in the primary decision. It found that, on the basis of this evidence, Mr Larose satisfied PIC 4005(1)(c)(ii)(A). Consequently, the Tribunal determined that the appropriate course of action was to remit the matter to the Minister for reconsideration of the remaining visa criteria. The Tribunal directed that Mr Larose met PIC 4005(1)(c)(ii)(A) for the purposes of clause 804.226 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994.