Pramono (Migration)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal considered the case of Mr. Pramono and his family, who applied for a Skilled Nominated (Permanent) visa (Subclass 190). The primary dispute concerned whether the applicants met the health criteria stipulated by Public Interest Criterion (PIC) 4005 of the Migration Regulations 1994. Specifically, the Tribunal had to determine if the visa could be granted when a member of the family unit, Mr. Pramono's son, did not meet these health requirements.

The central legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicants satisfied PIC 4005, which mandates that applicants be free from certain diseases or conditions that could pose a threat to public health or result in significant costs to the Australian community through healthcare and community services. The Tribunal was required to consider the impact of a Medical Officer of the Commonwealth's (MOC) finding that the applicant's son did not meet PIC 4005(1)(c)(ii)(A). A key aspect of the determination involved understanding the application of PIC 4005 to permanent visa applications and the binding nature of a MOC's opinion under regulation 2.25A.

The Tribunal reasoned that for permanent visa applications, the exclusion provision in PIC 4005(3) does not apply, meaning the full scope of PIC 4005(1)(c) must be satisfied. It noted that if any applicant within a family unit fails to meet the health criteria, all applicants are deemed to have failed. As the applicants were nationals of Indonesia, a specified country, the Tribunal was required to seek and accept the opinion of a MOC. The MOC had found that the applicant's son did not meet the health requirements. Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that the applicants had not satisfied the requirements of PIC 4005 as applied to clause 190.216 of the Migration Regulations.

The Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the Skilled Nominated (Permanent) visas to the applicants.