Oboro (Migration)

This matter concerned an appeal by Dr Omolola Oboro against the refusal of her Subclass 190 Skilled Nominated visa. The visa was refused because her son, Lawrence, an eight-year-old child, was assessed by a Medical Officer of the Commonwealth (MOC) as having a condition, autism, that would likely result in significant costs to the Australian community. This assessment meant that the applicant did not satisfy Public Interest Criterion 4005. The applicant submitted substantial arguments and evidence, including numerous medical reports, to the Tribunal.

The Tribunal was required to determine whether the MOC opinion, which formed the basis for the visa refusal, was valid. A valid MOC opinion, for the purposes of the Migration Regulations, must have asked the correct questions and considered all relevant issues. The Tribunal's role was not to exercise discretion to waive the criterion or consider the applicant's circumstances, but rather to assess the validity of the MOC's opinion.

The Tribunal noted that the MOC opinion considered a range of previous information, including specialist reports and a letter from the primary applicant, who is a child psychiatrist working in a remote area of Australia. The Tribunal acknowledged the significant disadvantage Australia, particularly the Pilbara region, would face if the applicant and her family were required to leave. However, the Tribunal's focus remained on the validity of the MOC opinion. The most recent MOC opinion, dated 31 March 2021, referred to specialist reports from November 2020 and a panel physician's findings from January 2021, which consistently identified significant speech and communication impairment and recommended active intervention services. The Tribunal found that the MOC opinion was valid and therefore must be accepted.

The Tribunal affirmed the delegate's decision to refuse the visa.