MOUZAKZAK (Migration)

[2018] AATA 2489

MOUZAKZAK (Migration) [2018] AATA 2489 (19 June 2018)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

APPLICANT:  Mr Samah MOUZAKZAK

CASE NUMBER:  1719919

DIBP REFERENCE(S):  BCC2017/2922466

MEMBER:Christine Cody

DATE:19 June 2018

PLACE OF DECISION:  Sydney

DECISION:The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicant a Medical Treatment (Visitor) (Class UB) visa.

Statement made on 19 June 2018 at 3:08pm

CATCHWORDS

Migration – Medical Treatment (Visitor) (Class UB) – Subclass 602 (Medical Treatment) – ongoing and regular medical treatment – Car accident rehabilitation – Multiple medical treatment visas granted – Limited improvement over  2 years – Applicant unaware of visa conditions – Use of visa to extend stay – Close family in Australia – Decision under review affirmed

LEGISLATION

Migration Act 1958 (Cth), s 65
Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth), Schedule 2 cls 602.212, 602.215

STATEMENT OF DECISION AND REASONS

APPLICATION FOR REVIEW

1. This is an application for review of a decision made by a delegate of the Minister for Immigration on 22 August 2017 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 was represented in relation to the application before the Department, as well is in relation to the review, by her registered migration agent, Dr Mahmoud Ajjawi.

2. The applicant applied for the visa on 14 August 2017. 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). Relevant law is set out in the attachment.

3. According to her visa application, the applicant was born in Tripoli, Lebanon, in 1985 and is now aged 33 years. She will be under medical care in Australia from15 August 2017 to 15 February 2018 because she was involved in a car accident and she sustained injuries to her neck, right arm, right lower limb and back. She needs treatment for her injuries including specialist, physiotherapy and psychological treatment. The insurance company (NRMA) will pay for the treatment as she was a passenger. She will receive additional financial and accommodation support from her brother, Toufik Mouzakzak. She does not intend to work or study during her stay. She requires assistance due to her injuries, until she completes her treatment.

4. Her general practitioner, Dr Milad, completed an Evidence of Intended Medical Treatment Form, stating that the applicant required treatment for a car accident which occurred on 17 May 2016. Her medications were panadeine forte and temazapam and she required physiotherapy and psychological counselling. He also provided a letter dated 27 July 2017, stating that she was involved in a major motor vehicle accident on “17 March 2016” [should be 17 May 2016], sustaining multiple body injuries including the right arm, right lower limb of the foot and back spine. She has not been able to walk or sit steady, she was on crutches and was referred for MRI’s and has been seeing specialists. He believes she is not fit to travel for the next 6 to 12 months, depending on her progress in recovery. She is also seeing an orthopaedic surgeon, Dr VJ Maniam who is looking after her treatment, as well as Roger Berbari, physiotherapist, and Mr Medhat Metry.

   Immigration history

5. The delegate referred to the applicant’s immigration history sourced from Departmental records, in the decision record, as follows:

   ·     On 29 December 2009 an application made by the applicant, her parents and family to migrate to Australia was refused. On 11 November 2011 the Migration Review Tribunal affirmed that decision. On 22 December 2011, the family sought Ministerial Intervention, with the result on 31 May 2012 as being “not considered”.

   ·     In 2014 the applicant was refused a visitor visas on two occasions, on the grounds that she did not meet the genuine visit criterion.

   ·     In 2016 she was granted a sponsored family visitor visa. She first arrived in Australia on 20 April 2016 with that sponsored family visitor visa, valid for stay until 20 July 2016. On 13 July 2016, the Further Stay Condition 8503 was waived, and on 20 September 2016, a medical treatment visa was granted for stay until 30 December 2016 to enable her to receive physiotherapy treatment for injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident on 17 May 2016.

   ·     On 22 December 2016, she applied for a second medical treatment visa, which was granted on 16 March 2017, for stay until 30 June 2017.

   ·     On 27 June 2017 and 5 July 2017, she attempted to lodge further medical treatment visa applications, the first being invalid because she did not provide the fee payment, and the second being invalid because she did not provide evidence of intended medical treatment.

   ·     On 14 August 2017 she lodged the current onshore medical treatment application.

   Delegate’s decision record

6. The delegate refused to grant the applicant the visa because the delegate was not satisfied that a genuine temporary visit was intended. The delegate noted that:

   ·     A valid application for a medical treatment visa had been made by the applicant;

   ·     Such a visa cannot be granted unless the applicant meets the relevant legal requirements; as of the date of the delegate’s decision, clause 602.215 has not been met by the applicant. The delegate noted that some persons request lengthy or rolling visas on the basis that they will require ongoing and regular medical treatment for a prolonged period. Although they are medically capable of departing Australia, they would prefer to remain in Australia indefinitely in order to continue medical treatment. Unless exceptional circumstances apply, it would be expected that applicants in the situation would not ordinarily meet the genuine visit requirement. Medical treatment visa should not be granted to applicants who intend to remain in Australia for a longer period, that is, maintain ongoing residence in Australia.

   ·     The delegate considered that the applicant had not provided evidence that she is gravely ill, or receiving intensive or critical care. Although her GP stated he believes her to be unfit to travel for the next 6 to 12 months, there is no definitive advice or evidence that they must remain in Australia to seek or continue her medications, counselling or therapy. There is no evidence suggesting that the medications, therapy or counselling is not unavailable in the country of nationality or elsewhere, nor that she has been unable to access any medications or services required in Lebanon.

   ·     Further, there is no evidence that she has been assessed by a Medical Officer of the Commonwealth that she is unfit to travel, incapacitated or incapable of departing Australia. She has not provided evidence of incentive to depart Australia or any evidence to suggest that she will depart Australia in the near or foreseeable future.

   ·     The delegate considers that the applicant has a history of seeking permanent residence or long-term stay in Australia. In relation to the current application, the delegate considered that there were not any personal compelling or exceptional circumstances to warrant departure from normal policy and legal requirements of the genuine visit criterion which is mandatory for the grant of a medical treatment visa. The delegate considers that she is now seeking a further medical treatment visa as a pathway to remain in Australia which is contrary to the intention and purpose of the medical treatment visa program.

   ·     Taking all of the above into consideration, it appears that the applicant is attempting to obtain another medical treatment visa in order to remain in Australia for a longer period, and to maintain ongoing residence in Australia, to work, and to access services in Australia.

7. The Departmental file does not contain a certificate of non-disclosure.

   The Tribunal

8. The applicant provided to the Tribunal a copy of the delegate’s decision record,  as well as submissions and reports which contain the following relevant information:

   ·     A letter from MM Psychological Support Services dated 29 May 2018 noting that the applicant attended the consultation rooms that day and “it appears that [the applicant] is suffering from depressive disorder and post-traumatic stress disorder. She is receiving cognitive behavioural therapy and she would benefit from continuing to receive this”.

   ·     A letter from Roger Berbari, physiotherapist, dated 29 May 2018, stating that she is suffering from chronic/ cervical/ lumbar spine pain with associated headaches, right shoulder pain and right ankle pain. She underwent conservative treatment with physiotherapy rehabilitation but she has residual symptoms in the affected body parts. She has limited functional capacity with symptoms aggravated on lifting, prolonged sitting, prolonged standing and performing household chores. She is unfit for international travel.

   ·     A letter from her GP, Dr Mahar Milad, dated 29 May 2018 repeating part of his previous letter, stating that although she is has regular medications and physiotherapy “she is not improving”. He does not explain why her treatment is not assisting. He believes she is not fit to travel for the next 9 to 18 months depending on her progress. She is seeing Dr V J Maniam, who is looking after her treatment. Recently she was referred to an ENT specialist to look after her tinnitus and ache in her left ear.

   ·     A letter from Prominent Lawyers indicates that it is estimated that the applicant’s treatment could take up to 12-18 months to complete (without specifying the source of this estimate).   

9. The Response to Hearing Invitation indicates that Samira Alameddine (her sister-in-law) would like to give evidence at the hearing noting that the applicant has been living at her house since she arrived in Australia in April 2016. It was noted that the agent was away and would not be attending the hearing.

10. The applicant appeared before the Tribunal on 12 June 2018 to give evidence and present arguments. The Tribunal also received oral evidence from her sister-in-law, and her brother also attended (stating that he would not be giving evidence and that he was only present as a support person).  The Tribunal hearing was conducted with the assistance of an interpreter in the Arabic (Lebanese) and English languages.

11. The applicant provided descriptions of her injuries/conditions as a result of the accident, and their progression:

    ·     A tear in 2 muscles of her back. She has been having physiotherapy and medication for two years. The Tribunal asked whether it had improved and she said no, she still has the pain. The Tribunal asked her to explain the advice from her specialists, namely why, in two years, there had been no improvement in her condition. Despite being given numerous opportunities to do so, she did not explain to the Tribunal her understanding as to her current situation and why there had been no improvement. She did not know when there would be any improvement in her situation.

    ·     There are two bones “not sitting properly” in her right shoulder. Her response was similar; she has been having physiotherapy and taking medication and it hasn’t improved. When the Tribunal again asked her to explain why, she was unable to do so. She said she may have to have an operation. The Tribunal said that if an operation had been recommended, why was this not referred to in the update letters provided. She said she doesn’t know. Later she said that she has been seeing an orthopaedic surgeon, Dr VJ Maniam, starting 10 months ago. He said that there is a possibility she may have to undergo surgery; but this will depend on how she goes.

    ·     There is an infection in her leg. She said it was caused by the accident. When asked how the accident caused an infection, she was unable to explain. She said it has been treated for two years. The Tribunal asked her why, if she had had an infection which had been treated for two years, this was not mentioned in the medical reports. She said she doesn’t know.

    ·     Also in her leg she has a bone not sitting properly. She is receiving physiotherapy and medication and it is not getting better and she could not offer an explanation as to why.  

    ·     She doesn’t hear very well in her left ear and she loses balance quickly. The Tribunal asked when this started and she said this started at the time of the accident. The Tribunal noted that if this was the case, it does not understand why the GP did not refer to it in his initial letter; instead it was only in his May 2018 letter that he referred to the applicant’s tinnitus and ear condition. She said she had received medication treatment for this from the family doctor since the accident. The Tribunal again noted that it did not understand why the GP would not have not referred to this in the first letter. She did not answer except to say it has been worse now and her dizzy spells have become more frequent.

    ·     When the Tribunal asked if there was any other problem or injury or pain or difficulty she had not mentioned, and she said no. The Tribunal noted that she made no mention of any mental health conditions. She then however volunteered that she felt mentally and psychologically unhappy, she cannot carry anything or walk or exercise and she is seeing a psychologist. The Tribunal asked what the diagnosis was and she said there is none. When the Tribunal noted that there was reference to a suggested diagnosis in the psychologist’s report she said that it is written in English so she does not understand what it says. The Tribunal asked how she conversed with him and she said in Arabic. The Tribunal suggested that in all this time (two years seeing him once per month according to her evidence) he might have told her, or she might have asked, any diagnosis. She then changed her evidence and said that she had asked him and he told her, but she had forgotten the name of the condition.

12. She told the Tribunal that her mother was deceased some time ago, and her father passed away last year. She has cousins in Lebanon. Her close family members (her two siblings) are in Australia.

13. She said that the country conditions in Lebanon have never caused her any fear or worry for her safety and she does not have fear for any reason preventing her from returning in the future. Similarly, none of her family members have had any problems in Lebanon.

14. The applicant’s sister-in-law gave evidence, saying that although she hoped the applicant would improve in 6-12 months, however there was no specific reason for this hope. It is unknown when the applicant will improve. She discussed the applicant’s medical treatment and said that she is not capable of doing much for herself.

15. The Tribunal discussed the provisions of clause 602.215 with the applicant at the hearing, and put to her that it appeared that she may not comply with the key requirement.

16. For the following reasons, the Tribunal has decided that the decision under review should be affirmed.

    CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE

17. The Subclass 602 Medical Treatment visa is for persons seeking to visit or remain in Australia temporarily for medical treatment or related purposes. The issue in this case is whether the applicant meets the provisions of clause 602.215. This clause provides that if the applicant is not considered “unfit to depart Australia” (by satisfying each requirement of Clause 602.212), then they must satisfy the requirement of clause 602.215 (1), namely that they intend to stay temporarily in Australia for the purpose for which the visa is granted.

    Is the applicant unfit to depart Australia?

18. 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.

19. There is no suggestion that any of the other alternative sub criteria are relevant in this case.

20. As one of the criteria of cl.602.212(6) is an age requirement; as discussed with the applicant (and agreed by her), she does not meet that age requirement as she is not 50 years of age.  Given this finding, the requirements in cl.602.212(6) are not met, and the applicant is not considered unfit to depart Australia.

    Does the applicant have a genuine intention to stay temporarily for the visa purpose?

21. 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.

22. The last substantive visa held by the applicant was a medical treatment visa. When asked however for the conditions of her visa, she said she did not know. When the Tribunal asked her a different way, namely what is she allowed to do and what is she not allowed to do while holding her visa, she said she did not know. She then said she was allowed to travel to Australia and not overstay when she was here on a previous visitor visa. The Tribunal noted that it was asking her about the conditions of her medical treatment visa and she said she does not know. The Tribunal put to her that it is hard to accept that she can comply with the conditions of her visa, if she does not know what they are. The Tribunal told her the conditions, namely that she not study for more than three months, and not work, and the purpose of the visa is for medical treatment. The Tribunal asked whether she wanted to comment about the conditions of the visa and she said no.

23. Although the applicant did not comment on the issue of substantial compliance, there is no evidence before the Tribunal that she has been working, or studying for more than three months while holding a medical treatment visa or bridging visa. Further, the evidence indicates that she has been receiving medical treatment.

24. The Tribunal also has to consider any other relevant matter. Before considering any other relevant matter, the critical matter seems to be key wording of clause 602.215 requiring that the applicant genuinely intends to stay temporarily in Australia for the purpose for which the visa is granted. For the reasons set out below, the Tribunal was concerned that the applicant’s intention is not to stay temporarily in Australia for the purposes of a medical treatment visa.

25. The Tribunal had some credibility concerns. It asked the applicant whether she had ever attempted to come to Australia prior to the visitor visa, and she said that in 2012 she came as a visitor and she stayed 3 months. Further, she came for a second visit in 2014. Then in 2016 she came again. The Tribunal asked whether she had made any other attempts to come to Australia and she said that she had made no other attempts. However, when the Tribunal put to her that, according to the delegate’s decision record, she had previously attempted to come to Australia, twice as a visitor, and also to permanently move here, she then changed her evidence.

26. Concerning the attempt to migrate to Australia, she said that she possibly tried to come here with her father and she must have forgotten it. When the Tribunal put to her that it was difficult to accept that she would have forgotten an attempt by her family to move permanently to Australia. She then said that it was not an attempt to come permanently to Australia. The Tribunal then read out to her the relevant paragraph from the delegate’s decision record. In response, she said, words to the effect of “That was something private when my father when alive and there was an engagement to someone who lived here and we lived with him.” The Tribunal put to her that it was a cause for concern that she initially told the Tribunal that she had not been part of an attempt of the family to migrate to Australia, but that her evidence was now that she had been.  In response she said that when the Tribunal first asked to the question, she must have forgotten about that, and when she was asked again, she has concentrated, and it is true that there was an application to come to Australia with her father. The Tribunal is not prepared to accept that the applicant did not recall that she and her family had tried unsuccessfully to come to live in Australia.

1. The Tribunal also noted that the delegate’s decision record indicated that the applicant had made two attempts to obtain a visitor visa in 2014 but did not meet the genuine visit criteria. The Tribunal noted this was inconsistent with her evidence to the Tribunal that she had not made any other attempts to come to Australia (other than successful applications). In response she said, maybe she didn’t understand the question; it is true there was one application which was refused. When she heard the questions, she wasn’t concentrating, when she made the effort to concentrate, she could answer the question.

2. The Tribunal put to the applicant that it was concerned with her explanations, and that it did not appear that any mental health condition she may have could explain the difficulties with her evidence. The Tribunal is not prepared to accept that the applicant could recall, while giving evidence, that she had made successful attempts to visit Australia, and that she had forgotten about those attempts which had been refused. This indicates that the applicant was prepared to mislead the Tribunal about her migration history including an attempt to live permanently in Australia.

3. Further, when the Tribunal asked when the applicant proposed to return to Lebanon, she responded when she gets over the pain, but she has no idea when that will be. The Tribunal was concerned that she was unable to explain to the Tribunal why she had not made any improvements at all in the last two years, and she was also unable to give the Tribunal an idea of when she would seek to return to Lebanon. The Tribunal’s concerns in this regard were heightened because it noted in her application form signed in July 2017, she had indicated that she was only seeking treatment in Australia until a specific date (15 February 2018), yet her evidence suggested that when she completed that form, she had not been making any improvements.  In the circumstances, the Tribunal asked her why she had selected that date in February 2018 and she said she was under the impression she would be treated and that she would be fine. This however appears inconsistent with her assertion that she had not been getting any better (either one year after the accident in July 2017 when signing her form) or when giving her evidence to the Tribunal. The Tribunal asked again how she selected that particular date as the end date for her treatment and she was silent. The Tribunal repeated the question and she said she did not know how she selected that date. The Tribunal considers that this undermines her application form submitted to the Department portraying an intention to remain in Australia, as the holder of a medical treatment visa for a specific, six month period until 15 February 2018.    

4. The Tribunal put to the applicant at the end of the hearing that it had not made up its mind, but it was concerned that it was her intention to stay in Australia long-term, and that she does not have an intention to only stay temporarily for specific medical treatment. It noted that her close family members are all in Australia; and her previous immigration history indicates a desire to remain in Australia.  The Tribunal noted that it had taken into account her evidence, and that of her sister-in-law, who suggested that the applicant was weak and needed assistance and was having medical treatment. The Tribunal suggested to the applicant that she could return to Lebanon and could get her remaining treatment there. When asked to comment, the applicant said she did not wish to do so. While the Tribunal accepts that the applicant seeks to receive medical treatment in Australia, it does not appear to the Tribunal that the applicant has an intention of leaving Australia.

5. The Tribunal is not satisfied, on the evidence available, and taking into account its credibility concerns, that the applicant genuinely intends to stay temporarily in Australia for the purpose for which the visa is granted, namely an intention to stay temporarily to receive medical treatment.

6. Given the above findings, cl.602.215 is not met.

7. 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

8. The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicant a Medical Treatment (Visitor) (Class UB) visa.

   Christine Cody
   Member

   
   

   ATTACHMENT

   Migration Regulations 1994

   Schedule 2

   Subclass 602- Medical treatment.

   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.

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).