Sabbagh (Migration)

[2024] AATA 22

Sabbagh (Migration) [2024] AATA 22 (3 January 2024)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

APPLICANT:  Mr Bassam Soufi Sabbagh

REPRESENTATIVE:  Mr Houssam Haybe (MARN: 0001536)

CASE NUMBER:  2214295

HOME AFFAIRS REFERENCE(S):          CLF2019/22600

MEMBER:Mila Foster

DATE:3 January 2024

PLACE OF DECISION:  Sydney

DECISION:The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicant an Other Family (Residence) (Class BU) visa.

Statement made on 03 January 2024 at 4:34pm

CATCHWORDS

MIGRATION – Other Family (Residence) (Class BU) visa – Subclass 836 (Carer) – assistance could not reasonably be provided by relatives in Australia – welfare, hospital, nursing or community services in Australia – care for the applicant’s sister and brother-in-law – limited evidence of agency enquiries – decision under review affirmed

LEGISLATION

Migration Act 1958, ss 5, 65
Migration Regulations 1994, Schedule 2, cls 836.111, 836.212, 836.221; rr 1.03, 1.15
Social Security Act 1991

CASES

Biyiksiz v MIMIA [2004] FCA 814
Hon Anh Vuong v MIAC [2013] FCCA 274
Ignatious v MIMIA [2004] FCA 1395
Koitaki Para Rubber Estates Ltd v Federal Commissioner of Taxation (1941) 64 CLR 241
MIMIA v Hidalgo [2005] FCAFC 192
Scargill v MIMIA [2003] FCAFC 116

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 Home Affairs on 6 September 2022 to refuse to grant the review applicant an Other Family (Residence) (Class BU) visa under s 65 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (the Act).

2. The applicant applied for the visa on 10 May 2019. At that time, Class BU contained three subclasses - Subclass 835 (Remaining Relative), Subclass 836 (Carer) and Subclass 838 (Aged Dependent Relative: item 1123B of Schedule 1 to the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth) (the Regulations).

3. In the present case, the applicant is seeking to satisfy the criteria for the grant of a Subclass 836 visa. The criteria for that visa subclass are set out in Part 836 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations. Relevantly, the primary criteria include cl 836.212 which requires that the applicant claims to be the carer of an Australian relative at the time of application and cl 836.221 which requires that the applicant is the carer of a person referred to in cl 836.212 at the time of decision. The applicant stated in his visa application form that the relatives in Australia who needed his care were Joumana Soufi Sabbagh, his sister, and Fayez Hussein Kirdi, his brother-in-law. The applicant’s sponsor for the visa was Joumana Saadallah Kirdi. It was not expressly stated but it was implied in the supporting documentation that Joumana Soufi Sabbagh and Joumana Saadallah Kirdi were the same person.

4. The delegate refused to grant the visa on the basis that cl 836.221 was not met because the delegate was not satisfied that the assistance the sponsor required could not reasonably be provided by other members of her family or obtained from welfare, hospital, nursing or community services in Australia.

5. The applicant appeared before the Tribunal on 31 August 2023 to give evidence and present arguments. The Tribunal hearing was conducted with the assistance of an interpreter in the Arabic and English languages.

6. The applicant was represented in relation to the review. The representative attended the Tribunal hearing.

7. For the following reasons, the Tribunal has concluded that the decision under review should be affirmed.

   CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE

8. The evidence before the Tribunal includes the Department of Home Affairs file relating to the visa application, the oral evidence given at hearing, a written submission made by the representative on the morning of the hearing, and documentary evidence the applicant submitted to the Tribunal before and after the hearing.

9. The issue in the present case is whether the assistance the sponsor requires cannot reasonably be obtained from welfare, hospital, nursing or community services in Australia.

   Background

10. It is claimed that the applicant is a 60-year-old citizen of Lebanon who arrived in Australia on a visitor visa on 17 August 2018.

11. It is claimed that he has been living with and caring for his 66-year-old sister, the sponsor, since he arrived.

12. It is claimed that the sponsor is married to Fayez Hussein Kirdi who is 80 years old.

13. It is claimed that the sponsor has no biological children; she has 3 step-children from her husband’s previous marriage and no other siblings in Australia.

    Whether the applicant has claimed to be the ‘carer’

14. Clause 836.212 of the Regulations requires that the applicant claims to be the carer of an Australian relative.

15. As already noted the visa application was made on the basis that the applicant is the carer of his sister, the sponsor, and his brother-in-law, the sponsor’s husband. The applicant stated in the Form 80 he completed on 6 February 2019 that his main reason for wanting to stay in Australia was to care for his sister and brother-in-law. In a statement the applicant made on 9 November 2021 he stated he had the physical capability to render help to his sister and her husband. According to other documentation the sponsor cares for her husband[1] and the applicant stated at the hearing that the sponsor received the government Carer payment each fortnight to care for her husband.

    [1] For example, in a letter dated 15 August 2018, the sponsor’s GP Dr Ali El-Jaam states that she has been her ‘husband’s legal carer’ and according to the sponsor’s My Aged Care Support Plan review dated 12 May 2023 she cares for her husband.

16. For the purposes of the Carer visa, ‘Australian relative’ is defined as a relative of the visa applicant who is an Australian citizen, an Australian permanent resident, or an eligible New Zealand citizen: cl 836.111. The term ‘relative’ is defined in reg 1.03 of the Regulations to include a sister but does not include a brother-in-law.

17. At the hearing the Tribunal put to the applicant that the definition of a relative in the Regulations did not include a brother-in-law. Initially he said he had no evidence to present on the issue but later stated that he was not his brother-in-law’s carer - he was there if his brother-in-law needed help. The Tribunal finds that as a brother-in-law is not a ‘relative’ as defined in reg 1.03, cl 838.212 is not satisfied on the basis that the applicant claimed to be the carer of Fayez Hussein Kirdi.

18. At the hearing the applicant stated that Joumana Soufi Sabbagh and Joumana Saadallah Kirdi were the same person; she was his sister and she had changed her name from the former to the latter upon marrying Mr Kirdi. The Tribunal requested documentary evidence of this to be provided after the hearing.

19. The Tribunal has before it an English translation of a document titled ‘Familial Extract of Vital Statistics’ issued by the General Directorate of Vital Statistics of the Lebanese Ministry of Interior and Municipalities on 19 June 2018 which indicates that Joumana Soufi Sabbagh and the applicant had the same parents. According to the Family Extract their father’s name was Saadallah. After the hearing the applicant submitted a copy of a translation of what was said to be the marriage certificate relating to Joumana Soufi Sabbagh’s marriage to Mr Kirdi. The Tribunal also has before it photocopies of an Australian passport issued to Joumana Soufi Sabbagh in 2009 and an Australian citizenship certificate granting her citizenship in 1991.  The dates of birth of Joumana Soufi Sabbagh and Joumana Saadallah Kirdi are the same on all these documents. The Tribunal is thus satisfied on the evidence before it that Joumana Soufi Sabbagh and Joumana Saadallah Kirdi are the same person and that she is the biological sister of the applicant. The applicant is thus the ‘relative’, as defined in reg 1.03, of the sponsor.

20. Further, the Tribunal is satisfied on the basis of the Australian passport and Australian citizenship certificate issued to the sponsor that she is now and was at the time of application an Australian citizen.

21. The Tribunal therefore finds that at the time of application the applicant claimed to be the carer of an Australian relative and hence satisfies the requirement in cl 836.212.

    Whether the applicant is a carer

22. Clause 836.221 requires that at the time of decision, the applicant is a carer of the Australian relative (or ‘resident’). The term ‘carer’ is defined in reg 1.15AA of the Regulations which is set out in the attachment to this Decision. It states that the applicant is the carer of a person who is an Australian citizen usually resident in Australia,[2] Australian permanent resident or eligible New Zealand citizen (the ‘resident’) if the requirements in paragraphs (a) to (f) are met.

    [2] The dual factors of physical residency and intention are essential elements in the notion of ‘usually resides’: Scargill v MIMIA [2003] FCAFC 116 (‘Scargill’); Ignatious v MIMIA [2004] FCA 1395; and MIMIA v Hidalgo [2005] FCAFC 192. Generally speaking, an individual’s place of residence is to be determined by reference to where he ‘eats and sleeps and has his settled or usual abode’; Koitaki Para Rubber Estates Ltd v Federal Commissioner of Taxation (1941) 64 CLR 241 at 249, endorsed in Scargill at [17].

23. It is claimed that the applicant is the carer of the sponsor. The Tribunal has found that the sponsor is an Australian citizen. The Tribunal is satisfied on the evidence before it that she is ‘usually resident’ in Australia and hence is the ‘resident’ for the purposes of reg 1.15AA.

    Applicant is a relative of the resident – reg 1.15AA(1)(a)

24. Regulation 1.15AA(1)(a) requires that the applicant is a ‘relative’ of the resident. The Tribunal has found that the applicant is a relative of the sponsor. Therefore, the applicant is a relative of the resident and meets the requirements of reg 1.15AA(1)(a).

    Certification – reg 1.15AA(1)(b)

25. Regulation 1.15AA(1)(b) requires that a certificate, which meets requirements of reg 1.15AA(2), states that: the Australian relative (resident) or a member of the family unit has a medical condition; that the medical condition is causing physical, intellectual or sensory impairment of the ability of that person to attend to practical aspects of daily life; that the impairment has a rating (under the impairment tables) that is specified in the certificate; and that because of the condition, the person has and will continue for at least 2 years to have, a need for direct assistance in attending to the practical aspects of daily life.

26. For a certificate to meet reg 1.15AA(2) it must be signed and issued in relation to a medical assessment carried out on behalf of a health provider specified by the Minister (see Legislative Instrument IMMI 14/085), or issued by a specified health provider in relation to a review of such an opinion.

27. A certificate meeting the requirements in reg 1.15AA(2)(a) was issued by Bupa, the health provider specified in IMMI 14/085, in relation to the sponsor on 6 June 2019. According to the certificate the sponsor has several medical conditions which impair her ability to attend to the practical aspects of daily life. The certificate specifies an impairment table rating for the impairment, and the certificate states that because of the medical conditions the sponsor has and will continue to have for at least 2 years a need for direct assistance in attending to the practical aspects of daily life.

28. The Tribunal thus finds that the certificate provided meets the requirements of reg 1.15AA(2). Further, the certificate addresses each of the matters mentioned in reg 1.15AA(1)(b)(i)-(iv). Accordingly, the requirements of reg 1.15AA(1)(b) are met.

    Residency status of person with medical condition – reg 1.15AA(1)(ba)

29. Regulation 1.15AA(1)(ba) requires that the person who has the medical condition is an Australian citizen, Australian permanent resident or eligible New Zealand citizen.

30. In the present case, the person with the medical condition is the sponsor who is an Australian citizen. Accordingly, the requirements of reg 1.15AA(1)(ba) are met.

    Impairment rating – reg 1.15AA(1)(c)

31. Regulation 1.15AA(1)(c) states that the impairment rating must be equal to or exceed the impairment rating specified by the relevant legislative instrument. The relevant instrument for these purposes is IMMI 17/126.

32. In the present case, the impairment rating specified in the certificate is 30. This rating is equal to the impairment rating specified by the relevant instrument and therefore meets the requirements of reg 1.15AA(1)(c).

    Resident’s need for assistance (where s/he is not the subject of certificate) – reg 1.15AA(1)(d)

33. Where the person to whom the certificate relates is not the resident but a member of their family unit, reg 1.15AA(1)(d) requires the resident to have a permanent or long-term need for assistance in providing the direct assistance mentioned in reg 1.15AA(1)(b)(iv). That direct assistance is for the subject of the certificate attending to the practical aspects of daily life for at least 2 years as a result of the medical condition.

34. As the person to whom the certificate relates is the resident, reg 1.15AA(1)(d) does not apply.

    Assistance cannot be reasonably obtained / provided – reg 1.15AA(1)(e)

35. Regulation 1.15AA(1)(e) requires that the assistance cannot reasonably be provided by: any other relative of the Australian relative who is an Australian citizen, permanent resident or an eligible NZ citizen; or obtained from welfare, hospital, nursing or community services in Australia. The Federal Court has held that ‘reasonably obtained’ in relation to community services is determined by reference to obtainability by the person requiring the assistance and not by reference to the availability of the service: Biyiksiz v MIMIA [2004] FCA 814. While cultural factors can be relevant to the determination of whether the relevant care is reasonably obtainable, an applicant’s mere preference for a particular service is to be distinguished from a cultural reason: Hon Anh Vuong v MIAC [2013] FCCA 274 at [34].

36. On 12 November 2021 the applicant submitted an undated document to the Department outlining what were said to be inquiries that had been made to obtain assistance for the sponsor. It appears to have been written by the representative. The document states that the sponsor requires 24-hour assistance in her own home although the Carer certificate does not state that such assistance is required by the sponsor. It was claimed that Muslim Care advised that they had insufficient workers due to COVID-19 restrictions. There is no evidence that COVID-related restrictions have since affected the services the sponsor could receive. It was claimed that Muslim Care was contacted again and they advised services could not be provided to the sponsor. In the absence of details about the nature of services requested the Tribunal is not satisfied that the assistance the sponsor required could not have been obtained from Muslim Care. It was also claimed in the document that ‘multiple’ hospital, home care and community services were also contacted but a ‘suitable service’ could not be found for the sponsor near her home. Accompanying the document were screenshots from some of the service providers that were said to have responded to emails and inquiries regarding the sponsor. In the absence of documentary evidence of the nature of the inquiries made to these service providers and their responses the Tribunal is not satisfied that assistance of the kind the sponsor needed could not reasonably be obtained from local hospitals, home care and community services.

37. One of the emails attached to the document was sent from the representative’s email to Right at Home Australia on 20 October 2021. It stated that the sponsor requires 24-hour assistance in her own home. The reply received was that the service provider would get back to them as soon as possible. This indicates contact was made with a service provider but not that the assistance the sponsor required could not be obtained. Another screenshot shows that on 20 October 2021 Sasa Care sent a follow up email wanting more information about the sponsor. This does not indicate that assistance the sponsor required could not be obtained from Sasa Care. A third screenshot indicates that the Salvation Army was contacted and a reply was received that they would be in touch shortly. It was noted that no response was received. The Tribunal expects that genuine inquiries would be followed up. That no response was received after an initial inquiry does not satisfy the Tribunal that assistance of the kind the sponsor needs could not reasonably be obtained from the Salvation Army.

38. On 24 January 2022 the applicant submitted to the Department an undated statement attaching emails from service providers stating they were unable to assist the sponsor. He also stated that he had spoken to Bolton Clarke and BDS who advised over the phone that they did not have capacity to take on new clients. He said that due to their policy they could not put that in writing. It was not apparent from the emails when they were received. They were sent to the representative’s assistant.[3] Australian Unity advises that they are unable to take on new customers at the time, Hills Nursing advises that they ‘cannot help’ and Muslim Care states they do not have capacity to take on new clients. In the absence of details about the nature of information provided to the service providers about the assistance sought for the sponsor the Tribunal is not satisfied on this evidence that the assistance of the kind the sponsor required could not reasonably be obtained from these service providers.

    [3] As the representative advised at the hearing.

39. The applicant stated in his statement that for many of the nursing and community organisations the sponsor would be expected to undergo and assessment with MyAgedCare. He attached documents listing the services provided by various local MyAgedCare service providers.[4] He stated that the sponsor would require a Level 4 care package but that assistance would be inadequate to meet the sponsor’s needs. However, the evidence does not indicate that the sponsor had undergone an MyAgedCare assessment at that stage. The applicant claimed the sponsor could not afford the cost of assistance but did not provide supporting documentary evidence about the cost of relevant services or the sponsor’s inability to pay for assistance. The Tribunal is thus not satisfied on this evidence that the sponsor could not reasonably obtain the assistance she requires from service providers.

    [4] KinCare, Prompt Care NSW, RSL LifeCare at Home – Northern Sydney/Galston, Eremea – CHSP Western Sydney.

40. On review the applicant presented a MyAgedCare assessment support plan made with respect to the sponsor on 3 March 2022 and a MyAgedCare assessment support plan review dated 12 May 2023. In his pre-hearing written submission, the representative stated that language barriers had hindered effective communication when the sponsor attempted to seek assistance. He said the first plan did not reflect her circumstances and hence she requested a review but the decision remained unchanged. He stated that the sponsor had requested a further evaluation on 11 July but had not heard anything since.

41. Neither MyAgedCare document indicates the sponsor was assessed as requiring a Home Care Package Level 4. Both documents recommend transport, social support and domestic assistance services and provide contact details for numerous service providers.  At the hearing the Tribunal put to the applicant that the MyAgedCare documents appeared to indicate that the sponsor could obtain the assistance she needs. He responded by describing the care the sponsor’s husband received and stated that the sponsor did not receive care despite her condition. Questioned further he stated that the sponsor was not receiving any services through the MyAgedCare program; he claimed she had asked for appropriate services but they had not been provided. He stated that both assessments occurred over the phone while he was smoking outside and he did not hear anything. The Tribunal noted that according to the documents the assessments were conducted with an Arabic interpreter. The applicant claimed that the sponsor could not understand the Iraqi Arabic interpreter provided so she requested a Lebanese Arabic interpreter which was provided. He also claimed that the sponsor gave permission for Sara, her husband’s carer, to speak on her behalf during the assessments. He said Sara was Syrian and the sponsor could understand her. The Tribunal questioned why then the representative stated in his written submission that language barriers had hindered communication. The applicant said the sponsor had received a call and did not understand so she asked Sara who discovered that her claim was denied and then Sara applied again for her. The Tribunal noted that the documents did not indicate that the sponsor had been denied services but was offered assistance. The applicant replied that to date the sponsor had not been provided with anything.

1. Invited to make oral submissions the representative stated that he wished to make written submissions addressing matters raised at the hearing. He said that for example, the first MyAgedCare assessment was conducted with an Iraqi interpreter and that Sara, the sponsor’s husband’s carer, subsequently spoke to MyAgedCare on the sponsor’s behalf. The representative indicated he knew better than the applicant what had taken place during the MyAgedCare assessments. The Tribunal agreed to allow time for the representative to provide written submissions and for the applicant to present further documentary evidence including evidence about the MyAgedCare assessments particularly any evidence from those who were present during the assessments such as the sponsor. Additional documents were presented after the hearing – in the main they consisted of documents the Tribunal had requested such as the sponsor’s marriage certificate, clear copies of documents provided to the Department[5] and documents mentioned in other documents.[6] No written submissions from the representative were presented on matters raised at the hearing nor further evidence in relation to the MyAgedCare assessments.

   [5] Screenshots submitted to the Department.

   [6] For example, medical reports from the sponsor’s GP, Dr Ali El-Jaam, referred to in the Carer’s certificate.

2. The MyAgedCare documents indicate to the Tribunal that the sponsor could obtain assistance she requires through community services in Australia but has chosen not to access them. The Tribunal does not accept the evidence of the applicant and the submission of representative that the sponsor was not properly assessed MyAgedCare and has been refused services through the program. Firstly, neither the applicant nor the representative were present during the sponsor’s interview/s with MyAgedCare hence they do not have firsthand knowledge of what occurred. Secondly, the Tribunal was not provided with evidence after the hearing from the sponsor or Sara about what transpired at the assessments. Thirdly, the MyAgedCare documents do not support the claim that the sponsor was not provided with a suitable Arabic speaking interpreter for the assessment. The document dated 3 March 2022 states that the assessment was conducted by phone with the sponsor’s consent via an Arabic interpreter. Further, the document states that the sponsor was able to answer all assessment questions independently via an interpreter. The document dated 12 May 2023 indicates that the sponsor had been unable to be contacted and no changes to the support plan was made. Both documents list the services recommended to the sponsor and the service providers who could provide those services. The first MyAgedCare document does not indicate that the sponsor was refused or denied any services she requested or required. The second MyAgedCare document does not indicate that the review was conducted as a result of a request made by or on behalf of the sponsor due to language/interpreting issues at the interview on 3 March 2022 or because she was refused services. The Tribunal thus does not accept the account of the MyAgedCare assessment presented by the applicant and his representative. The evidence does not indicate to the Tribunal that the sponsor or anyone on her behalf contacted the service providers listed in the MyAgedCare documents after her assessment to attempt to obtain services for her. The Tribunal is thus not satisfied that a genuine attempt has been made to access assistance of the kind the sponsor requires through the MyAgedCare program nor do the MyAgedCare documents indicate that assistance of the kind the sponsor requires cannot reasonably be obtained via the MyAgedCare program and service providers.

3. Finally, the Tribunal notes that in a statement dated 9 November 2021 in which the applicant stated that he was willing to provide the assistance the sponsor needed he said that the assistance was ‘culturally appropriate as she [the sponsor] is my sister’. He did not explain how his assistance was culturally appropriate nor has he claimed that the sponsor could not reasonably obtain assistance from services in Australia due to cultural reasons.

4. For these reasons and particularly the findings in relation to the MyAgedCare assessment, the Tribunal is not satisfied on the evidence before it that assistance of the kind the sponsor requires cannot reasonably be provided by a relevant relative, or obtained from welfare, hospital, nursing or community services in Australia. Therefore, the requirements of reg 1.15AA(1)(e) are not met.

   Conclusion

5. In light of the above findings, the applicant is not a carer of the Australian relative at the time of decision. The applicant thus does not satisfy cl 836.221 and does not meet the criteria for a Subclass 836 visa.

   Other visa subclasses

6. In respect of the other visa subclasses the material before the Tribunal does not permit a finding that the applicant meets prescribed criteria for the visa sought.

7. The evidence before the Tribunal is that the applicant was born in 1963. As he was not old enough to be granted an age pension under the Social Security Act 1991 at the time of application, he does not meet the definition of ‘aged dependent relative’ in r.1.03 for the purposes of cl 838.212. The Tribunal thus finds that the applicant is not entitled to the grant of Subclass 838 (Aged Dependent Relative) visa.

8. According to information provided in connection with the visa application the applicant has siblings residing in Lebanon. As the applicant had a ‘near relative’ as defined in r.1.15(2) in Lebanon he was not a ‘remaining relative’ and unable to meet cl.835.212. The Tribunal therefore finds that the applicant is not entitled to the grant of Subclass 835 (Remaining Relative) visa.

   DECISION

9. The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicant an Other Family (Residence) (Class BU) visa.

   Mila Foster
   Member

   
   

   ATTACHMENT

   Migration Regulations 1994

   1.15AA Carer

   1.15AA (1)An applicant for a visa is a carer of a person who is an Australian citizen usually resident in Australia, an Australian permanent resident or an eligible New Zealand citizen (the resident) if:

   (a)the applicant is a relative of the resident; and

   (b)according to a certificate that meets the requirements of subregulation (2):

   (i)a person (being the resident or a member of the family unit of the resident) has a medical condition; and

   (ii)the medical condition is causing physical, intellectual or sensory impairment of the ability of that person to attend to the practical aspects of daily life; and

   (iii)the impairment has, under the Impairment Tables (within the meaning of subsection 23(1) of the Social Security Act 1991), the rating that is specified in the certificate; and

   (iv)because of the medical condition, the person has, and will continue for at least 2 years to have, a need for direct assistance in attending to the practical aspects of daily life; and

   (ba)the person mentioned in subparagraph (b)(i) is an Australian citizen, an Australian permanent resident or an eligible New Zealand citizen; and

   (c)the rating mentioned in subparagraph (b)(iii) is equal to, or exceeds, the impairment rating specified in a legislative instrument made by the Minister for this paragraph; and

   (d)if the person to whom the certificate relates is not the resident, the resident has a permanent or long-term need for assistance in providing the direct assistance mentioned in subparagraph (b)(iv); and

   (e)the assistance cannot reasonably be:

   (i)provided by any other relative of the resident, being a relative who is an Australian citizen, an Australian permanent resident or an eligible New Zealand citizen; or

   (ii)obtained from welfare, hospital, nursing or community services in Australia; and

   (f)the applicant is willing and able to provide to the resident substantial and continuing assistance of the kind needed under subparagraph (b)(iv) or paragraph (d), as the case requires.

   (2)A certificate meets the requirements of this subregulation if:

   (a)it is a certificate:

   (i)in relation to a medical assessment carried out on behalf of a health service provider specified by the Minister in an instrument in writing; and

   (ii)signed by the medical adviser who carried it out; or

   (b)it is a certificate issued by a health service provider specified by the Minister in an instrument in writing in relation to a review of an opinion in a certificate mentioned in paragraph (a), that was carried out by the health services provider in accordance with its procedures.

   (3)The Minister is to take the opinion in a certificate that meets the requirements of subregulation (2) on a matter mentioned in paragraph (1)(b) to be correct for the purposes of deciding whether an applicant satisfies a criterion that the applicant is a carer.