SALMA (Migration)

This matter concerned an application for review of a decision not to grant Skilled (Provisional) (Class VC) visas to the applicants. The primary dispute revolved around whether the secondary applicant, Master S M Makeem Arham, met Public Interest Criterion (PIC) 4005, which requires applicants to be free of certain diseases or conditions that may impact the community. The applicants' son had been assessed as having moderate developmental delay associated with trisomy 21. The case was heard by Karen McNamara.

The legal issue before the court was whether the secondary applicant satisfied PIC 4005(1)(c)(ii)(A), specifically in relation to the potential significant cost of healthcare or community services for a temporary visa holder. This required an assessment of the applicant's medical condition against the criteria, considering the duration of the proposed temporary stay in Australia, which was assessed as one year and six months. The court needed to determine if the medical officer's opinion, which found the applicant did not satisfy the criterion, was correct.

The court affirmed the decision under review, finding that the secondary applicant did not satisfy PIC 4005(1)(c)(ii)(A). A Medical Officer of the Commonwealth (MOC) had initially provided an opinion to this effect, and a subsequent Review MOC (RMOC) report, which considered various medical reports and the applicant's condition, also concluded that the applicant did not meet the criterion for the assessed period of temporary stay. The RMOC applied the statutory criteria by reference to a hypothetical person with the applicant's condition. Despite submissions from the applicants' representative regarding departmental policy on assessing "significant costs," the Tribunal concluded that as one of the applicants had not satisfied the requirements of PIC 4005, the decision not to grant the visas had to be affirmed.