Madahar (Migration)
Case
•
[2021] AATA 4345
•15 October 2021
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Madahar (Migration) [2021] AATA 4345
[2021] AATA 4345
15 October 2021
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The Administrative Appeals Tribunal considered an application for a Regional Employer Nomination (Permanent) (Class RN) Subclass 187 visa. The primary applicant was the first-named applicant, and the second-named applicant was initially included as a member of the family unit. The dispute centred on the health requirement, specifically Public Interest Criterion (PIC) 4007, which both the primary applicant and any accompanying family unit members must satisfy.
The Tribunal was required to determine whether the health requirement under PIC 4007 was met for the applicants. This involved considering the status of the second-named applicant, who had initially been found not to satisfy PIC 4007(1)(c)(ii)(A), and the subsequent changes in their relationship and the second-named applicant's circumstances. The Tribunal also needed to assess the current health status of the first-named applicant and any other remaining family unit members applying for the visa.
The Tribunal reasoned that the second-named applicant, having divorced the primary applicant and subsequently passed away, was no longer a member of the family unit for the purposes of the visa application. As such, the Tribunal concluded it had no jurisdiction in relation to the second-named applicant. Crucially, the Tribunal noted that subsequent evidence demonstrated that the first-named applicant and the third-named applicant, who was now the only remaining family unit member, had both satisfied the health requirement on 22 September 2021.
Consequently, the Tribunal remitted the applications for the first-named and third-named applicants to the Minister for reconsideration, with a direction that they met the health requirement under PIC 4007 for the Subclass 187 visa. The Tribunal explicitly stated it did not have jurisdiction concerning the second-named applicant.
The Tribunal was required to determine whether the health requirement under PIC 4007 was met for the applicants. This involved considering the status of the second-named applicant, who had initially been found not to satisfy PIC 4007(1)(c)(ii)(A), and the subsequent changes in their relationship and the second-named applicant's circumstances. The Tribunal also needed to assess the current health status of the first-named applicant and any other remaining family unit members applying for the visa.
The Tribunal reasoned that the second-named applicant, having divorced the primary applicant and subsequently passed away, was no longer a member of the family unit for the purposes of the visa application. As such, the Tribunal concluded it had no jurisdiction in relation to the second-named applicant. Crucially, the Tribunal noted that subsequent evidence demonstrated that the first-named applicant and the third-named applicant, who was now the only remaining family unit member, had both satisfied the health requirement on 22 September 2021.
Consequently, the Tribunal remitted the applications for the first-named and third-named applicants to the Minister for reconsideration, with a direction that they met the health requirement under PIC 4007 for the Subclass 187 visa. The Tribunal explicitly stated it did not have jurisdiction concerning the second-named applicant.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Immigration
-
Administrative Law
Legal Concepts
-
Jurisdiction
-
Remedies
-
Procedural Fairness
-
Statutory Construction
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Citations
Madahar (Migration) [2021] AATA 4345
Cases Citing This Decision
0
Cases Cited
0
Statutory Material Cited
0