Mathew (Migration)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal considered an application by Mr Jithu Mathew for a Regional Employer Nomination (Permanent) visa. The central dispute concerned whether Mr Mathew met Public Interest Criterion (PIC) 4007, which requires visa applicants to be free from certain diseases or conditions that could pose a threat to public health or result in significant costs to the Australian community.

The Tribunal was required to determine whether Mr Mathew was free from tuberculosis, a disease or condition that could be a threat to public health or a danger to the Australian community, and a disease or condition that would likely require health care or community services resulting in significant cost or prejudice to Australian citizens or permanent residents. The Tribunal also had to consider whether a Medical Officer of the Commonwealth (MOC) opinion was required and, if so, whether it had been correctly applied.

The Tribunal reasoned that, as Mr Mathew had applied for a permanent visa, the exemption in PIC 4007(1B) did not apply. It found that a MOC opinion was required under regulation 2.25A of the Migration Regulations 1994. The Tribunal noted that while a MOC opinion is generally taken as correct, it must first be satisfied that the MOC applied the correct legal test, referencing *Robinson v MIMIA* (2005) 148 FCR 182 and *Ramlu v MIMIA* [2005] FMCA 1735. The Tribunal concluded that the matter should be remitted for reconsideration.

The Tribunal remitted the application for Regional Employer Nomination (Permanent) visas for reconsideration, directing that the first named applicant, Mr Mathew, met PIC 4007(2)(b) for the purposes of clause 187.224(2) of Schedule 2 to the Regulations. The Tribunal also noted it did not have jurisdiction in respect of the fourth named applicant.