Lovepreet Singh (Migration)

Lovepreet Singh (Migration) [2020] AATA 4364 (20 August 2020)
DECISION RECORD
DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division
APPLICANT:  Mr Lovepreet Singh
CASE NUMBER:  1909776
DIBP REFERENCE:  BCC2019/1563402
MEMBER:Rosa Gagliardi
DATE:20 August 2020
PLACE OF DECISION:  Australian Capital Territory
DECISION:The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicant a Medical Treatment (Visitor) (Class UB) visa.

Statement made on 20 August 2020 at 10:55am

CATCHWORDS
MIGRATION – Medical Treatment (Visitor) (Class UB) visa – Subclass 602 (Medical Treatment) – genuine temporary visitor – visit for medical treatment – medical evidence of required medical treatment – need for the treatment in Australia – intention to maintain ongoing residence in Australia – multiple previous visa applications – decision under review affirmed
LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958, ss 65, 359
Migration Regulations 1994, Schedule 2, cls 602.212, 602.215
CASES
Hasran v MIAC [2010] FCAFC 40
Singh v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (2017) FCAFC 67
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 11 April 2019 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 28 March 2019. 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 applicant did not meet cl.600.212(6) and cl.600.215. Essentially, the delegate was not satisfied that the applicant genuinely intends to stay temporarily in Australia for the purpose for which the visa is granted, that is medical treatment.
The Tribunal had initially scheduled a hearing for 9 July 2020, but for operational reasons was required to reschedule the hearing. The Tribunal duly advised the applicant.
On 26 June 2020 the Tribunal again wrote to the applicant to invite him to a hearing to have been held by telephone on 14 July 2020, at 1300 hrs (ACT time). The Tribunal explained that to slow the spread of COVID-19, the AAT had not been holding face to face (in person) hearings since 23 March 2020 and at that time was closed to all visitors until further notice. It therefore had arranged for the applicant to appear by phone.
In its letter of 26 June 2020, the Tribunal also explained that the Tribunal had considered the material before it but was unable to make a favourable decision on this information alone. The applicant was asked to provide at least 7 days before the hearing all documents the applicant intended to rely on to establish that he met the criteria for the visa. The applicant was further advised he was not able to participate in the phone hearing he needed to advise the Tribunal as soon as possible and that the Member would only make any changes if she was satisfied that the applicant had a good reason for being granted an adjournment.
On 13 July 2020 the applicant’s migration agent wrote to the Tribunal to advise that the applicant wanted to delay the hearing as he was “currently unwell and would not be able to participate in the hearing on the set date”. The agent requested a postponement beyond

9 August 2020. A medical certificate was attached dated 10 July 2020, stating, “In opinion the patient will be unfit for a tribunal hearing for the period: Friday, 10 July 2020 to Sunday,
9 August 2020”, and “This man is suffering mental health dysfunction at this time and would like to undergo his present treatment regime over the next month to prepare himself mentally for the pending tribunal hearing”.
On 13 July 2020 the Tribunal wrote to the applicant pursuant to s.359(2) of the Act inviting the applicant to provide the following:
·Evidence of the applicant requiring treatment for any serious condition from a medical specialist or surgeon;
·Explanation as to why such treatment has not already been undertaken in Australia given the last evidence submitted by the applicant indicated that he suffered from a pilonidal sinus located in the left gluteal crease as at March 2019. The Tribunal had noted that the applicant’s General Practitioner had escalated the surgery to a Priority B;
·Evidence of the treatment he had been receiving in the previous year for his condition;
·Evidence why he could not have his condition attended to in his home country; and
·A list of the visas the applicant has applied for in Australia and dates of such applications and to please note whether he had had visa refusals reviewed by the AAT or litigated in the Australian courts.
The Tribunal letter of 13 July 2020 made it clear that the information should be received by 27 July 2020. The applicant was advised that if could not provide the information by 27 July 2020 he could ask for an extension of time in which to provide the information and that if he made such a request, it had to be received by the Tribunal by 27 July 2020. The applicant was also required to state the reason why the extension of time was required. The Tribunal added, “We will carefully consider any request for an extension of time and will advise whether or not the extension has been granted”.
Relevantly, the Tribunal noted that if the Tribunal did not receive the information within the period allowed or as extended, the Tribunal may make a decision on the review without taking any further action to obtain the information. Importantly, the Tribunal also advised in bold, “You will also lose any entitlement you might otherwise have had under the Migration Act 1958 to appear before us to give evidence and present arguments”.
At the time of writing this decision the applicant had not responded by 27 July 2020, even though he was represented by a migration agent. He is yet to respond to the Tribunal’s request for information. Nor has the applicant, through his migration agent, requested an extension for the provision of the information sought.
The Tribunal is satisfied that the applicant was properly sent an invitation to provide further information under section 359(2) of the Act. The invitation was sent to the applicant’s nominated email address, being the email address provided by the applicant in connection with his application for review.
Where an applicant is invited to provide further information under section 359(2) of the Act and fails to provide that information within the prescribed period, the Tribunal may make a decision on the review without taking any further action: section 359C(1).
The Tribunal finds that the applicant did not provide information as requested. In these circumstances, the applicant is not entitled to appear before the Tribunal: section 360(3). Crucially, the effect of section 363A of the Act is that if a review applicant has no entitlement to a hearing, the Tribunal has no power to permit the applicant to appear: Hasran v MIAC [2010] FCAFC40.
Further, the decision in the Full Federal Court in Singh v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (2017) FCAFC 67 (27 April 2017) indicates that the issuance of a hearing invitation does not confer upon an applicant an accrued or fixed right to a hearing. The Full Court arrived at this conclusion by having regard to sections 360(3) and 363A of the Act.
The Tribunal considers that it has provided the applicant a reasonable opportunity to present his case and demonstrate that he genuinely intends to stay temporarily in Australia for the purpose for which the visa is granted. It is also appropriate to highlight that a decision-maker is not required to make the applicant’s case for him or her. It is for the applicant to satisfy the Tribunal that the requirements of the Act and Regulations have been met. While the Tribunal is cognisant that the onus of proof is not appropriate to administrative decision-making, the relevant facts of the individual case have to be supplied by the applicant, in as much detail as is necessary to enable the examiner to establish the relevant facts.
The Tribunal also notes that the applicant has been on notice since the delegate made his/her decision that there was little evidence to suggest “that the applicant is gravely ill or receiving intensive or critical care, nor does it state the applicant must remain in Australia for ongoing consultation. Information provided does not state the treatment the applicant is seeking is unavailable outside of Australia.” Further, the decision of the delegate states “In the Medical Treatment visa application, the applicant has not provided sufficient documentation to demonstrate his intention or incentive to depart Australia now or in the near future. Departmental records confirm that the applicant has unsuccessfully applied for permanent visas onshore and has taken every opportunity to present his case or circumstances for review”.
Even if the applicant was not in a position to attend a phone hearing on 14 July 2020 it is not explained why verifiable medical information has not been presented about any new medical issue that has arisen, such as “mental health dysfunction” for which his General Practitioner claims he is being treated.
In the circumstances, the Tribunal proceeds to make a decision on the material before it, including the Departmental decision which was provided to the Tribunal for the purposes of the review.
For the following reasons, the Tribunal has decided that the 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.
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.
There is no suggestion that any of the other alternative sub criteria are relevant in this case.
The Tribunal has limited evidence before it to suggest that the applicant is physically or otherwise medically unfit to depart Australia due to a permanent or deteriorating disease or condition evidenced in writing by a Medical Officer of the Commonwealth. Nor does the Tribunal have evidence that the applicant 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.
Given the above findings, the requirements in cl.602.212(6) are not 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). As the Tribunal is not satisfied on the basis of the information before it that the applicant is medically unfit to depart Australia, it must assess the applicant against cl.602.215.
cl.602.215
(1) The applicant genuinely intends to stay temporarily in Australia for the purpose for which the visa is granted, having regard to:
(a) whether the applicant has complied substantially with the conditions to which the last substantive visa, or any subsequent bridging visa, held by the applicant was subject; and
(b) whether the applicant intends to comply with the conditions to which the Subclass 602 visa would be subject; and
(c) any other relevant matter.
(2) However, subclause (1) does not apply if the requirements described in subclause 602.212(6) are met in relation to the applicant.
Clause 602.215 in Schedule 2 of the Migration Regulations is a criterion that must be satisfied. That is, that the decision-maker is required to be satisfied that the applicant genuinely intends to stay temporarily in Australia for the purpose for which the visa is granted.
In assessing whether the applicant satisfies clause 602.215 a decision-maker is required to have regard to the following:
·Whether the applicant has complied substantially with the conditions to which the last substantive visa, or any bridging visa, held by the applicant was subject
·Whether the applicant intends to comply with the conditions to which the visa would be subject
·Whether the applicant is attempting to obtain the visa to remain in Australia for a longer period, such as maintain ongoing residence in Australia
·The personal circumstances of the applicant that would encourage them to return to their home country at the end of the proposed stay
·The personal circumstances of the applicant that might encourage them to remain in Australia (for example, economic situation, civil disruption)
·Conditions that might encourage the applicant to remain in Australia
·The presence of immediate family members living in their home country that is, does the applicant have more close family members living in their home country, than in Australia.
The applicant’s departmental records as reflected in the Departmental decision indicate:
·He arrived in Australia on 16 December 2014 as the holder of a Student (subclass 573) visa.
·Between 29 September 2016 and 1 April 2019, the applicant has applied for 5 permanent visa applications. He has unsuccessfully sought various avenues of review for the refused applications including the AAT.
·During the applicant’s time in Australia, he has been a lawful non-citizen.
On 28 March 2019, the applicant lodged an application for a Medical Treatment visa. The associated Form 1507 was provided in support of the application confirming the applicant was seeking medical treatment for Pilonidal Sinus Surgery. A medical referral letter to a surgeon, dated 26 March 2019, states among other things, that the applicant “presented to me with a history of suffering from a pilonidal sinus located left gluteal crease. Could you please review and as required undertake appropriate surgery”. The referral is stamped URGENT and in handwriting is a notation, “Already waiting 9 months. Needs to be Category 2 or Category B”.
The Australian Health Direct Government website provides information about pilonidal sinus and how it can be treated.
Pilonidal disease is a chronic skin infection that develops in the crease between the buttocks, near your tailbone.
If you have pilonidal disease, you will have one or more cysts between your buttocks that may become swollen or infected. A pilonidal cyst looks like a small dimple and it may have hair sticking out from it. It usually occurs in young people between the ages of 15 and 24 years, and is more common in males.
What causes pilonidal disease?
You may develop pilonidal cysts from:
·     a hair follicle that is irritated from things such as exercise, tight clothing or heavy sweating
·     hair growth or a loose hair that is trapped and pokes into the skin, causing irritation
·     changing hormones
Some people are born with pilonidal cysts.[1]
[1] accessed on 19 August 2020
From the medical literature available to the Tribunal it does not appear that this condition is one that surgery or antibiotics cannot resolve, although the Tribunal notes that it can be a recurring problem.[2] Further, it appears that the problem is a common one in young adults.[3] There is little to suggest, however, that the condition requires complicated surgery or that the condition, although painful, cannot be managed. While all surgery represents a risk, this appears to be at the lower end and there is little information before the Tribunal as to the applicant’s condition at this time; with or without surgery.
[2]
Given that there was an escalation of the surgery to Category 2, some 16 months ago, the Tribunal would have liked to have had a response from the applicant as to whether he has actually had the surgery and, if not, why he could not have the condition treated in his home country.
The Tribunal’s s.359(2) letter was intended to elicit from the applicant a status report in terms of whether his surgeon had mapped out a timeframe for the surgery and recovery. The Tribunal has limited evidence before it in respect of these critical matters. The Tribunal sees few reasons the applicant, through his migration agent, could not present to the Tribunal information about his pilonidal sinus condition by 27 July 2020. Nor is it clear why the applicant could not seek an extension to provide such information.
In respect of the “mental health dysfunction” suffered by the applicant and for which he is undergoing a treatment regime, in it’s section 359(2) letter of 13 July 2020, the Tribunal made a general request that the applicant provide evidence of him requiring treatment for any serious condition from a medical specialist or surgeon. The Tribunal has taken into account the General Practitioner’s statement that the applicant needed time to prepare himself for the hearing and that the applicant was suffering mental dysfunction, but the Tribunal has little evidence before it as to what the precise nature of that mental dysfunction might be. The Tribunal has limited information, for example, as to whether the General Practitioner made such a diagnosis and on what basis. Without further information it is open to the Tribunal to question whether the General Practitioner was simply relaying what the applicant had told him.
Further, the Tribunal has limited information that would indicate that the diagnosis of mental health dysfunction was made by a psychologist or psychiatrist using probative testing techniques, for example.
The term “mental health dysfunction” is a particularly general one and the Tribunal has concerns that the applicant is now aware that his options for remaining in Australia have narrowed and that this may be causing distress to the applicant, given his protracted attempts to achieve a migration outcome. The Tribunal is aware that this is speculative on its part, however, in light of the applicant’s migration history, and the limited medical evidence before it, it is a conclusion reasonably open to it.
The General Practitioner states that the applicant wishes to undergo his “present treatment regime over the next month to prepare himself mentally for the pending tribunal hearing”. The Tribunal would have been interested to know about the present treatment the applicant is receiving for his mental health dysfunction and the Tribunal requested such information via its s.359(2) letter which specifically sought evidence of the treatment the applicant had been receiving in the previous year for his claimed condition. The applicant was also put on notice in the s.359(2) letter that any further postponement of any hearing would require a formal diagnosis from a psychologist or psychiatrist and the basis for any diagnosis, alerting the applicant to the need to make a case in respect of any psychiatric or psychological condition.

While the Tribunal appreciates that reports by psychiatric/psychological professionals can take time, there appear to be few reasons the applicant/migration agent could not have submitted a “holding letter” to advise that a comprehensive report would be provided.
As it is, the Tribunal is unclear as to what treatment for what conditions, the applicant is receiving and who might be administering such treatment. The Tribunal has limited information before it, for example, that the applicant might be being treated with medication or through any other non-medicinal intervention.
The Tribunal would have also liked to have heard from the applicant as to why his condition could not be treated in his home country and what was particular to the treatment he might be receiving in Australia, that could not be replicated in his home country.
The timing of the applicant’s lodgement of the Medical Treatment visa application is also of concern as it occurred when the applicant appeared to have few further options for remaining in Australia. This is particularly so as the condition he asked to have treated in Australia at the time of application (pilonidal sinus) is not of a kind that is particularly serious or life-threatening (at least little medical information was submitted to persuade the Tribunal that this is or was the case).
Against these concerns and unanswered questions, the Tribunal addresses the matters relating to cl.602.215.
Whether the applicant has complied substantially with the conditions to which the last substantive visa, or any Bridging visa held by the applicant, was subject
It appears that the applicant has always maintained a lawful presence in Australia. In terms of whether he has actually abided by his conditions throughout his lengthy stay in Australia the Tribunal has limited information.
Whether the applicant intends to comply with the conditions to which the visa would be subject
Given the limited persuasive medical evidence about the applicant’s current medical condition, the Tribunal has concerns that the applicant seeks the Medical Treatment visa to continue to maintain an ongoing presence in Australia, where otherwise he would have had few options to do so. The Tribunal notes that it was open to the applicant to leave Australia after being unsuccessful at review with the AAT, but that he pursued various avenues to remain in Australia even when he did not meet the relevant criteria.
Given the applicant appears to be motivated to remain in Australia via the Medical Treatment visa, and given the applicant has demonstrated little motivation to return to his home country, the Tribunal is concerned that the applicant is now at a crossroads where his determination to remain in Australia will outweigh any considerations for his visa conditions.
Whether the applicant is attempting to obtain the visa to remain in Australia for a longer period, such as maintain ongoing residence in Australia
The applicant’s migration history demonstrates that the applicant has pursued an ongoing presence in Australia even though his claims for remaining here have been reviewed by the AAT.
Even disregarding the applicant’s past conduct and motivation in pursuing avenues to remain in Australia, the Tribunal overwhelmingly relies on the fact that the applicant has provided little convincing evidence that he genuinely intends to stay temporarily in Australia for the purpose for which the visa is granted; that is, to seek medical treatment for condition/s that must be treated in Australia.
The personal circumstances of the applicant that would encourage them to return to their home country at the end of the proposed stay
The Tribunal has limited information before it regarding the applicant’s personal circumstances that would encourage him to return to his home country at the end of the proposed stay. Even if the applicant does have strong affective/business ties in his home country, it would appear that these have not been enough to incentivise the applicant to return to his home country when reviews of his applications for visas were unsuccessful. As such, the Tribunal queries whether such ties represent a strong incentive for the applicant to return to his home country at the end of any proposed stay.
The personal circumstances of the applicant that might encourage them to remain in Australia (for example, economic situation, civil disruption).
The Tribunal is unaware as to how the applicant is financially maintaining his residence in Australia and whether he is working, for example, despite his claimed debilitating condition/s. Whatever the case may be, however, the applicant’s past conduct would point to the applicant being motivated to continue to remain in Australia rather than return to his home country.
Conditions that might encourage the applicant to remain in Australia
To date the conditions in Australia have held a strong attraction to the applicant and continue to do so.
The presence of immediate family members living in their home country that is, does the applicant have more close family members living in their home country, than in Australia
These are matters about which the Tribunal has little information. From the applicant’s migration history, however, it would appear that regardless of immediate or distant family members in the applicant’s home country, the applicant has an overriding motivation to stay in Australia on an ongoing basis.
Conclusion
Having had regard to the evidence before it, individually and cumulatively, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant genuinely intends to stay temporarily in Australia for the purpose for which the visa is granted. Indeed, the Tribunal has reservations that his intention is to continue to maintain an ongoing presence in Australia.
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.
Rosa Gagliardi
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).

ibid;
ibid.

3

[2020] AATA 4364

20 August 2020

Key Legal Topics

Areas of Law

Immigration

Administrative Law

Legal Concepts

Judicial Review

Procedural Fairness

Natural Justice

Jurisdiction

Statutory Construction

Standing