Manpreet Singh (Migration)

This matter concerned a review by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal of a decision concerning the Subclass 186 Employer Nomination Scheme visa application by Manpreet Singh, with Ekam Singh Maan listed as a secondary applicant. The core dispute revolved around whether Ekam Maan met the health requirement under Public Interest Criterion (PIC) 4007, specifically concerning a diagnosis of Mild Cognitive Impairment, which the delegate had found he did not satisfy.

The Tribunal was required to determine if Ekam Maan was free from diseases or conditions that could pose a threat to public health or the Australian community, or that would likely require health or community services resulting in significant cost to the Australian community or prejudice access for citizens and permanent residents. The Tribunal also had to consider whether the PIC 4007 requirement could be waived, given that the exemption for temporary visas did not apply to this permanent visa application. A key legal issue was the extent to which the Tribunal could consider circumstances at the time of the decision, rather than solely at the time of the visa application, when recalculating cost estimates.

The Tribunal reasoned that while Medical Officer of Commonwealth (MOC) opinions are generally taken as correct, it must first be satisfied that the MOC applied the correct statutory criteria. In recalculating the potential costs to the Australian community, the Tribunal considered the applicant's circumstances at the time of the decision, as permitted by case law. Despite a recalculation reducing the estimated costs to $103,020, this amount still significantly exceeded the policy threshold of $51,000 for a "significant cost." However, the Tribunal also considered a paediatrician's report which indicated Ekam Maan's condition required minimal support, that his parents were committed to private therapy, and that he was otherwise healthy and progressing well, suggesting a potential for a waiver.

Ultimately, the Tribunal concluded that the matter should be remitted for reconsideration. This was based on the Tribunal's recalculation of the estimated costs to the Australian community and its consideration of the professional reports detailing Ekam Maan's current health status and the level of support he required.