Mubarak; Secretary, Department of Social Services and (Social services second review)

Mubarak; Secretary, Department of Social Services and (Social services second review) [2017] AATA 1808 (20 October 2017)
Division:GENERAL DIVISION
File Number(s): 2017/1962
Re:Secretary, Department of Social Services
APPLICANT

AndSadia Mubarak
RESPONDENT

DECISION
Tribunal:Professor R McCallum AO, Member
Date:20 October 2017
Place:Sydney

The decision of the Social Services and Child Support Division of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal dated 8 March 2017 is set aside and is substituted by the following decision: The decision of this Tribunal is that Mrs Mubarak does not qualify for Disability Support Pension because her permanent blindness and her continuing inability to work first manifested themselves before she was granted a subclass 100 permanent partner visa on 19 June 2015 when she fulfilled the residency requirements.
............................[sgd]............................................
Professor R McCallum AO, Member
CATCHWORDS
SOCIAL SECURITY – Disability Support Pension – whether applicant satisfies the residence requirements – applicant does not satisfy the residency requirements – decision under review set aside and substituted
LEGISLATION
Social Security Act 1991 (Cth)
Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth)
Social Security (Tables for the Assessment of Work-related Impairment for Disability Support Pension) Determination 2011 (Cth)
CASES
Drake and Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (No 2) (1979) 2 ALD 634
SECONDARY MATERIALS
Guide to Social Security Law
REASONS FOR DECISION
Professor R McCallum AO, Member
20 October 2017
BACKGROUND

The Respondent, Mrs Sadia Mubarak was born in Pakistan. She married Mr Ahmad Mubarak, who was an Australian citizen, in Pakistan on 5 January 2007. Their first child was born in late 2007.
Mr Mubarak became an Australian citizen on 11 April 2006.
On 20 August 2009, Mrs Mubarak applied for a partner visa, sponsored by her husband. She was granted a subclass 309 Partner (Provisional) temporary visa on 29 November 2010.
Mrs Mubarak arrived in Australia on 28 January 2011. Mr and Mrs Mubarak’s second child was born in early 2012.
Mrs Mubarak’s Subclass 309 visa expired on 19 June 2015, and on 19 June 2015 she was granted a Subclass 100 permanent Partner visa. This meant that she obtained permanent residence in Australia.
While the grant of any partner visa is subject to relationship, health and character requirements, I note here that Mrs Mubarak would appear to have been eligible for a subclass 100 partner permanent visa in August 2009, rather than the temporary visa that she was granted. This is because in August 2009 she had been married for two years and had a child of that marriage: see discussion of the Ten year qualifying Australian residence rule below.
Mrs Mubarak Applies for DSP
On 12 August 2016, Mrs Mubarak applied for Disability Support Pension (DSP) on the grounds of her blindness. However, on 23 August 2016, the Department of Human Services, which is better known as Centrelink, rejected her claim on the grounds that she did not meet the residency requirements for DSP.
Mrs Mubarak sought review from an Authorised Review Officer (ARO). On 4 October 2016, the ARO affirmed the original decision.
Mrs Mubarak sought review from the Social Services and Child Support Division of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) which is known as an AAT first review or AAT1.
On 8 March 2017, the AAT1 set aside the original decision and referred the matter back to Centrelink for reconsideration on the basis that Ms Mubarak satisfied the residency requirements for DSP.
Appeal by the Secretary
The Applicant, the Secretary, Department of Social Services, has appealed against the decision of the AAT1 to the General Division of the AAT which is known as an AAT second review or AAT2.
The Hearing
Mrs Mubarak attended the hearing in person. She was accompanied by her husband Mr Mubarak. Mrs Mubarak and her husband gave sworn evidence with the assistance of an interpreter in the Urdu language.
THE LEGISLATION FOR DSP
The relevant provisions concerning DSP on the ground of blindness are set out in the Social Security Act 1991 (Cth) (SS Act). The primary provision concerning permanent blindness is section 95 of the SS Act which I shall call the blindness provision.
However, it is possible to obtain DSP for acute loss of vision under section 94 of the SS Act which I shall call the general provision.
Both of these sections specify the qualifications for DSP, but they also contain residency requirements. It is easiest to begin with the qualifications and then turn to the residency requirements.
The s 95 and s 94 Qualifications for DSP
The qualifications for DSP on the ground of permanent blindness are set out in subsection 95(1) of the SS Act, that is the blindness provision. Subsection 95(1) relevantly provides as follows:
95 Qualification for disability support pension—permanent blindness
(1)       A person is qualified for a disability support pension if:
(a)       the person is permanently blind; and
(b)       the person has turned 16;
Mrs Mubarak clearly complies with paragraph (b) as she is an adult.
In relation to paragraph (a) of subsection 95(1) of the SS Act, the Guide To Social Security Law (the Guide) sets out the tests for permanent blindness. The Guide is of course Government policy. Although it is not binding on this Tribunal, good administrative practice obliges me to adhere to it unless its application leads to injustice. See Drake and Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (No 2) (1979) 2 ALD 634, 644-645. In the circumstances before me, no injustice arises from adherence to this policy which I shall follow.
The Guide relevantly provides as follows:
1.1.V.50 Visual acuity (restricted field of vision) (DSP)
Definition
For the purposes of DSP, visual acuity refers to the extent to which an object can be brought into focus. This is measured using the Snellen Scale.
Act reference: SS Act section 95 Qualification for DSP-permanent blindness
Policy reference: SS Guide 3.6.2.40 Assessment of Blindness for DSP
3.6.2.40 Assessment of Blindness for DSP
Meeting the qualification criteria of section 95
To be permanently blind for the purposes of SS Act section 95, a person must have:
·visual acuity (1.1.V.50) on the Snellen Scale after correction by suitable lenses of less than 6/60 in both eyes, OR
·constriction to within 10 degrees of fixation in the better eye irrespective of corrected visual acuity, OR
·a combination of visual defects resulting in the same degree of visual impairment as that occurring in the above points.
Put simply, a person will be permanently blind under the blindness provision if she or he is found under the Snellen Scale, after correction by suitable lenses, to have visual accuity of less than 6/60 in both eyes etc.
If a person meets the qualifications of the blindness provision (that is of subsection 95(1)(a) of the SS Act) the person will receive DSP without needing to undertake a means or asset test. Furthermore, the person will not be required to show that she or he has a continuing inability to work. This is not the case when a person qualifies for DSP pursuant to the general provision, that is, under subsection 94(1) of the SS Act.
This provision sets forth the general qualifications for DSP. Subsection 94(1) of the SS Act relevantly provides as follows :
94 Qualification for disability support pension
(1) A person is qualified for disability support pension if:
(a)the person has a physical, intellectual or psychiatric impairment; and
(b)the person’s impairment is of 20 points or more under the Impairment Tables; and
(c)one of the following applies:
(i) the person has a continuing inability to work;
Mrs Mubarak satisfies subsection 94(1)(a) of the SS Act as she has a visual impairment.
Under subsection 94(1)(b), this impairment must attract 20 points under the Social Security (Tables for the Assessment of Work-related Impairment for Disability Support Pension) Determination 2011 (Cth) (the Impairment Tables). The relevant table for Mrs Mubarak is Table 12 which is titled “Visual function”.
Finally, Mrs Mubarak must show that she has a continuing inability to work pursuant to subsection 94(1)(c)(i) when read with subsection 94(2) and attendant provisions of the SS Act. For the purposes of the matter before me, it is not necessary to reproduce subsection 94(2) and attendant provisions of the SS Act.
The Section 95 and Section 94 Residency Requirements for DSP
Subsection 95(1)(c) of the SS Act, that is the blindness provision, sets forth the residence requirements as follows:
95Qualification for disability support pension – permanent blindness
(1) A person is qualified for a disability support pension if:..
(c)the person:
(i) is an Australian resident at the time when the person first satisfies paragraph (a); or
(ii) has 10 years qualifying Australian residence; or
(iia) has a qualifying residence exemption for a disability support pension; or
(iii) is born outside Australia and, at the time when the person first satisfies paragraph (a), the person:
(A) is not an Australian resident; and
(B) is a dependent child of an Australian resident;
and the person becomes an Australian resident while a dependent child of an Australian resident;
To qualify for DSP on the ground of permanent blindness, Mrs Mubarak must satisfy the residency requirements at the time when she first became permanently blind.
Subsection 7(2) of the SS Act specifies who is an Australian resident for the purposes of social security law as follows:
7 Australian residence
(2)       An Australian resident is a person who:
(a)resides in Australia; and
(b)is one of the following:
(i)     an Australian citizen;
(ii)    the holder of a permanent visa;
(iii)    a special category visa holder who is a protected SCV holder.
Mrs Mubarak satisfies subsection 7(2)(a) as she resides in Australia with her husband and children.
In relation to 7(2)(b), the only relevant subparagraph is subparagraph (ii) requiring the person to be the holder of a permanent visa. It is not necessary to set out the relevant definitions in subsection 7(1) of the SS Act and in the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (the Migration Act). It is clear that Mrs Mubarak’s Subclass 309 Partner (Provisional) temporary visa was not a permanent visa.
However, on 19 June 2015 Mrs Mubarak was granted a Subclass 100 Permanent Partner visa. This meant that from 19 June 2015 onwards, Mrs Mubarak was the holder of a permanent visa and satisfied subsection 7(2)(b)(ii) of the SS Act.
Subparagraph (i) is not relevant as Mrs Mubarak is not an Australian citizen. Nor is subparagraph (iii) relevant as she was not residing in Australia on 26 February 2001 which is a requirement of a special category visa holder who is a protected SCV holder.
Therefore, Mrs Mubarak satisfied subsection 95(1)(c)(i) of the SS Act, that is the blindness provision on 19 June 2015 when she was granted a Subclass 100 permanent Partner visa..
The other subparagraphs in 95(1)(c) do not apply to Mrs Mubarak. She does not have ten years qualifying Australian residence under subparagraph (ii). Nor does she have a qualifying residence exemption for disability support pension under subparagraph (iia). A qualifying residence exemption is defined in subsections 95(6) and (6A) of the SS Act. Put briefly, these subsections cover refugees, former refugees and their family members.
Finally, subparagraph (iii) applies to a person becoming an Australian resident while still a child of an Australian resident. Mrs Mubarak is obviously not a child of an Australian resident.
The residency requirements for the general provision are set out in subsection 94(1)(e) of the SS Act. In Mrs Mubarak’s circumstances subsection 94(1)(e) provides as follows:
94 Qualification for disability support pension
(1)       A person is qualified for disability support pension if:
…
(e)     the person either:
(i)     is an Australian resident at the time when the person first satisfies paragraph (c); or
(ii)    has 10 years qualifying Australian residence, or has a qualifying residence exemption for a disability support pension; or
(iii)    is born outside Australia and, at the time when the person first satisfies paragraph (c) the person:
(A)      is not an Australian resident; and
(B)      is a dependent child of an Australian resident;
and the person becomes an Australian resident while a dependent child of an Australian resident;
Subsections 94(1)(e)(i), (ii) and (iii) for present purposes mirror subsections 95(1)(c) (i), (ii), (iia) and (iii) of the SS Act.
In these circumstances, it is not necessary to further analyse subsection 94(1)(e) when read with subsection 7(2) of the SS Act. This is because the analysis of subsection 95(1)(c) of the SS Act which is set out above, also applies to 94(1)(e).
It is clear that Mrs Mubarak only satisfied subparagraph (e)(i) of subsection 94(1) of the SS Act, when read together with subsection 7(2) of the SS Act on 19 June 2015 when she was granted a subclass 100 partner permanent visa.
To qualify for DSP under the general provision, that is under section 94 of the SS Act, Mrs Mubarak’s continuing inability to work must have manifested itself after she was granted her permanent visa.
CONSIDERATION
From the evidence before me, and after analysing the statutory provisions, I find that Mrs Mubarak did not satisfy the residency requirements for DSP until she was granted a Subclass 100 permanent Partner visa on 19 June 2015.
The two remaining issues are, first, whether Mrs Mubarak became blind before or after 19 June 2015. Put another way, did Mrs Mubarak satisfy 95(1)(a) of the SS Act, that is the blindness provision, before or after she met the residency requirements.
The second issue is whether Mrs Mubarak manifested a continuing inability to work before or after 19 June 2015. Put another way, did Mrs Mubarak satisfy 94(1)(c)(i) of the SS Act, that is, the general provision, before or after she met the residency requirements.
S 95(1)(a): The Blindness Provision
When did Mrs Mubarak satisfy the blindness test for paragraph (a) of subsection 95(1) of the SS Act?
Before obtaining her subclass 309 visa, Mrs Mubarak underwent a medical examination in Lahore Pakistan. Dr Azamatullah Fateh filled in the medical examination form on 10 October 2009. In relation to Mrs Mubarak’s eyes and vision, Dr Azamatullah Fateh wrote the following on the form.
Eyes (including fundoscopy) - ‘normal’
Best distance visual acuity (with or without correction) right - 6/6 left - 6/6
Are there any physical or mental conditions which may prevent this person from attending mainstream school, gaining full employment or living independently now or in the future – no
However, the medical evidence before me from doctors who examined Mrs Mubarak in Australia show a rapid deterioration in her eyesight.
In a letter dated 25 August 2011, Dr David McKay who is a surgical and medical retina specialist wrote the following about Mrs Mubarak’s eye condition:
I am not sure of the aetiology of Sadia’s macular scarring, but I suspect it is possibly an end-stage Vogt-Koyanagi-Harada syndrome, or even Behcet’s disease. In any event, the scarring is severe and untreatable and I cannot make any sensible recommendations for management in this particular instance. Unfortunately Sadia will remain legally blind for the remainder of her life and there is really nothing that can be done about that. She should be referred for low vision aides, if you feel this is appropriate.
In a letter dated 20 December 2012 by Dr Clare Hooper who is a Medical Retinal Specialist, DR Hooper wrote as follows:
I have reviewed Mrs Mubarak on three occasions with regard to bilateral pan uveitis.
Mrs Mubarak has an eight year history of progressive loss of vision. She was last able to read in 2005/6. Her visual acuities are less than 6/60 in both eyes and hence she qualifies as legally blind. Her poor vision is due to bilateral macular scars secondary to the inflammation in the eyes. This is, unfortunately, irreversible damage.
In a later report dated 4 March 2014, Dr Hooper wrote, in part, as follows:
Mrs Mubarak was seen by Prof. Peter McCluskey in December 2013 and he agreed with the diagnosis of bilateral panuveitis (specifically multifocal choroiditis with pan-uveitis syndrome) complicated by choroidal neovascularisation and macular fibrosis. She was previously taking Maxidex for the anterior chamber inflammation only but stopped the drops 2 weeks ago. She is known to have bilateral vitritis but there is no point treating this change due to the macular damage.
Her visual acuities today were 3/36 right and 1/60 left. Her intralocular pressures were normal. Both anterior chambers were deep and quiet. Bilateral fundus examination was unchanged.
In summary, the anterior chamber inflammation is quiet today so there is no need for drops. Unfortunately nothing more can be done for the back of the eye.
Earlier, Dr Hooper had referred Mrs Mubarak to Professor Peter McCluskey who is an Opthalmologist.
In his letter to Dr Hooper dated 20 December 2013, Professor McCluskey wrote in part as follows:
Thanks very much for asking me to see this 31 year old Pakistani woman, who has had slowly progressive vision loss in each eye which began whilst she was still in Pakistan in 2006. Once she migrated to Australia she has been looked after by Kiran Sindhu and subsequently yourself. You have extensively investigated her and can find no evidence of associated or underlying systemic disease. Vision has been poor for the time that you have looked after her and the only treatment you have commenced is Maxidex drops to control anterior segment inflammation.
On examination on 17.12.2013 vision is 3/60 in the right eye and counting fingers in the left. There is some low grade anterior chamber activity in the right eye. The left eye is quiet. There are some minor lens opacities in each eye. The intra ocular pressures were 20 and 21. There is some mild vitreous cellular infiltration. In the fundi there are extensive scars consistent with multifocal choroiditis. There is extensive peripapillary fibrosis and subretinal scarring. There are bilateral old macular scars.
To me the appearances are consistent with multifocal choroiditis and pan uveitis syndrome complicated by peripapillary and presumably macular subretinal neovascular membranes. The disease is now repressed and burnt out and other than some low grade anterior segment inflammation there is no activity. In my opinion there is no prospect of improvement of vision with any anti-inflammatory therapy.
In her oral evidence before this Tribunal, Mrs Mubarak said that she was now blind. She stated that she could not see me.
Mrs Mubarak said that in 2009 her eyes were fine, but that she began having trouble after the birth of her second child in early 2012.
Mrs Mubarak said that in 2012 and in 2013, she walked her older child to and from kindergarten and school. She said that she also walked to and from school on occasions in 2014. However, from 2015 or 2016, she could not go anywhere alone.
Mrs Mubarak said that up until six months ago she could see large objects with one eye. For example, she said she could see the alphabet if it was written in large letters. The date of the hearing was 25 September 2015.
The evidence of Mrs Mubarak was not inconsistent with the medical evidence which I have summarised above.
Having regard to the evidence before me, I find that Mrs Mubarak was permanently blind within the meaning of subsection 95(1) (a) of the SS Act on 20 December 2012. In her report of 20 December 2012 which is set out above, Dr Hooper wrote:
Her visual acuities are less than 6/60 in both eyes and hence she qualifies as legally blind.
As Mrs Mubarak became permanently blind before she satisfied the residency requirements of the blindness provision, that is of subsection 95(1)(c) of the SS Act, she does not qualify for DSP on the ground of permanent blindness.
S 94: The General Provision

As I wrote above, Mrs Mubarak satisfies subsection 94(1)(a) because she has a visual impairment.
Having regard to the evidence before me, I find that Mrs Mubarak satisfies subsection 94(1) (b) of the SS Act. This is because I find that her acute loss of vision has an extreme functional impact on activities involving visual function which I assess at 30 points under Table 12 of the Impairment Tables.
I further find that Mrs Mubarak’s acute loss of vision is a severe impairment within the meaning of subsection 94(3B) of the SS Act.
When did Mrs Mubarak’s continuing inability to work first manifest itself pursuant to subparagraph (c)(i), when read together with subsection 94(2) and attendant provisions of the SS Act?
Mrs Mubarak attended a job capacity assessment (JCA) face to face interview with a registered psychologist on 10 February 2015. The JCA report is dated 31 March 2015. The assessor concluded that owing to the severe vision loss of Mrs Mubarak, she had a continuing inability to undertake work within the meaning of subsection 94(1)(c)(i), subsection 94(2) and related provisions of the SS Act.
Having regard to the JCA report and to the medical evidence, I find that Mrs Mubarak had a continuing inability to work on 10 February 2015 which it will be recalled was the date of the JCA face to face interview.
As Mrs Mubarak’s continuing inability to work first manifested itself before she was granted a permanent visa on 19 June 2015, Mrs Mubarak does not qualify for DSP.
My conclusions differ from those of the AAT1. However, I had the benefit of more documents and detailed arguments by counsel for the Secretary than the AAT1 did.
The 10 Year Qualifying Australian Residence Rule and DSP
I have found that Mrs Mubarak does not meet the residency requirements for DSP under sections 95 and 94 of the SS Act, that is the blindness provision and the general provision of this statute. Her permanent blindness and continuing inability to work arose before she was granted a permanent visa.
This means that Mrs Mubarak must rely on the 10 year qualifying Australian residence rule in subsection 95(1)(c)(ii), the blindness provision of the SS Act, or in subsection 94(1)(e)(ii), that is the general provision of the SS Act.
Ten years qualifying Australian residence is defined in subsection 7(5) of the SS Act as follows:
7 Australian residence
(5)       A person has 10 years qualifying Australian residence if and only if:
(a)the person has, at any time, been an Australian resident for a continuous period of not less than 10 years; or
(b)the person has been an Australian resident during more than one period and:
(i)     at least one of those periods is 5 years or more; and
(ii)    the aggregate of those periods exceeds 10 years.
Mrs Mubarak has been residing in Australia since 28 January 2011. Therefore, to obtain 10 years qualifying Australian residence she must continue to reside here until 27 January 2021. On 27 January 2021 Mrs Mubarak will qualify for DSP and the preferred provision is the blindness provision, that is section 95 of the SS Act.
In my opinion the 10 year qualifying Australian Residence rule can lead to unjust outcomes as in the matter before me.
As a person who has been totally blind since my birth and who was a member of the Board of Directors of Vision Australia from 2006 to 2015, I am aware of the trauma of young adults who lose their sight and become permanently blind.
In his oral evidence, Mr Mubarak said that he was unemployed as he was caring for Mrs Mubarak. He also stated that Mrs Mubarak is in receipt of NewStart Allowance.
There is no discretionary power in the SS Act to limit the harsh operation of this rule. If such a discretionary power did exist, in Mrs Mubarak’s situation I would shorten the 10 year period of qualifying Australian residence to the date of the hearing in this matter which was 25 September 2017. Thus the qualifying period of Australian residence would be six years and eight months instead of ten years.
I would do so for the following reasons.
First, Mrs Mubarak has made her life in Australia since 28 January 2011. Her second child was born here.
Second, from the evidence before me, Mrs Mubarak has suffered great trauma going blind as an adult with two young children. Mrs Mubarak will require mobility and related training and she has a continuing inability to undertake work, certainly for the next few years.
Third, there was a delay in Mrs Mubarak being granted a permanent visa which has prejudiced her claim for DSP.
Schedule 2 of the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth) (the Migration Regulations), sets forth the criteria for a subclass 100 Permanent Partner visa. These criteria include public interest criteria.
As at 20 August 2009, which was the date on which Mrs Mubarak applied for a visa to come to Australia, the relevant clauses of schedule 2 provided as follows:
100.2     Primary criteria
100.221
…
(2A)     The applicant meets the requirements of this subclause if:
(a)the applicant is the holder of a Subclass 309 (Spouse (Provisional)) visa or a Subclass 309 (Partner (Provisional)) visa which the Minister has decided, under section 345, 351, 391, 417, 454 or 501J of the Act, to grant to the applicant; and
(b)the applicant is the spouse or de facto partner of the sponsoring partner; and
(c)subject to subclauses (5), (6) and (7), at least 2 years have passed since the Minister made the decision mentioned in paragraph (a).
…
(5)     Paragraphs (2)(c) and (2A)(c) do not apply to an applicant who at
the time of making the application was in a long-term partner relationship with the sponsoring partner.
The expression “Long-term partner relationship” is defined in regulation 1.03 of the Migration Regulations as follows:
long-term partner relationship,
in relation to an applicant for a visa, means a relationship between the applicant and another person, each as the spouse or de facto partner of the other, that has continued:
(a) if there is a dependent child (other than a step-child) of both the applicant and the other person — for not less than 2 years; or
(b)in any other case — for not less than 5 years.
Mrs Mubarak clearly complied with clause 100.221 subclause (2A) paragraphs (a) and (b). This was because she held a subclass 309 Partner Provisional temporary visa and she was married to Mr Mubarak.
Subclause (2A) paragraph (c) required two years to elapse from the granting of the subclass 309 Partner (Provisional) temporary visa and the granting of a subclass 100 permanent partner visa. However, paragraph (c) expressly states that it is subject to subclause (5). This subclause which has been set out above, states that the two year period does not apply where the applicant is in a long-term relationship whose definition is also set out above.
Mrs Mubarak married Mr Mubarak in early 2007 and their first dependent child was born in late 2007.
Therefore, it was open to the Department of Immigration and Border Protection to grant Mrs Mubarak a subclass 100 visa without a two year delay.
Mrs Mubarak would be eligible for a subclass 100 permanent partner visa, once she was the holder of a subclass 309 Partner (Provisional) temporary visa.
Even if two years had elapsed before Mrs Mubarak had been granted a subclass 100 permanent partner visa, it would have been granted to her on or about 29 November 2012. In other words, had Mrs Mubarak received her permanent visa two years after being granted a temporary visa, she would have been a permanent visa holder in November 2012. On the findings which I have made above, Mrs Mubarak’s permanent blindness and continuing inability to work would have occurred when she was the holder of a permanent visa which meant that she would have satisfied the residency requirements for DSP.
Even if the delay had been three years, that is until 29 November 2013, on my findings above, Mrs Mubarak would have satisfied the residency requirements for DSP under the general provision, that is, section 94 of the SS Act. Finally, if the delay had been for four years, that is until 29 November 2014, on my findings above, Mrs Mubarak would have satisfied the residency requirements for DSP under the general provision, that is section 94 of the SS Act.
As no discretion exists to ameliorate the harshness of the 10 year qualifying Australian residence rule, Mrs Mubarak is not entitled to DSP until 27 January 2021, provided she continues to reside in Australia.
DECISION
The decision of the Social Services and Child Support Division of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal dated 8 March 2017 is set aside and is substituted by the following decision: The decision of this Tribunal is that Mrs Mubarak does not qualify for Disability Support Pension because her permanent blindness and her continuing inability to work first manifested themselves before she was granted a subclass 100 permanent partner visa on 19 June 2015 when she fulfilled the residency requirements.

I certify that the preceding 87 (eighty-seven) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of Professor R McCallum AO, Member

..........................[sgd]..............................................
Associate
Dated: 20 October 2017

Date(s) of hearing: 25 September 2017

Solicitors for the Applicant: Dr S Thompson, Department of Human Services

Respondent: In person

[2017] AATA 1808

20 October 2017

Key Legal Topics

Areas of Law

Administrative Law

Statutory Interpretation

Legal Concepts

Judicial Review

Jurisdiction

Statutory Construction

Appeal

Procedural Fairness

Date(s) of hearing:	25 September 2017
Solicitors for the Applicant:	Dr S Thompson, Department of Human Services
Respondent:	In person