Singh (Migration)

This matter concerned an appeal by Dashmesh Singh on behalf of his mother, Rinki Singh, against the refusal of a Contributory Parent (Migrant) (Class CA) visa (Subclass 143). Rinki Singh, a resident of India, applied for the visa in November 2015. The dispute centred on whether Rinki Singh's spouse, Trilok Singh, who was a non-migrating member of her family unit, met the health requirement stipulated by Public Interest Criterion (PIC) 4005.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether Trilok Singh satisfied PIC 4005, which requires that a visa applicant and non-migrating family members be free from diseases or conditions that could result in significant costs to the Australian community or prejudice access to health services for Australian citizens and residents. Specifically, the Tribunal had to determine if the Medical Officer of the Commonwealth's (MOC) opinion that Trilok Singh did not meet this criterion was valid, and whether the applicant had complied with requests for medical assessments.

The Tribunal considered multiple MOC opinions, the most recent of which, dated 23 November 2020, estimated the cost of Trilok Singh's potential medical services and pharmaceuticals at $391,000 over five years, significantly exceeding the $51,000 annual threshold for a "significant cost." While the review applicant later provided new medical information suggesting Trilok Singh was in remission and his medication costs were substantially lower, he had declined the Tribunal's invitation to obtain a further MOC opinion on 12 April 2021. The Tribunal noted that Regulation 2.25A of the Migration Regulations 1994 provides that the MOC's opinion is to be taken as correct for the purposes of deciding whether a person meets a criterion.

Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the visa. The Tribunal found that as Trilok Singh had not satisfied the health requirements of PIC 4005, and the applicant had declined the opportunity to obtain a further MOC opinion to address the concerns raised by the existing opinions, the criteria for the grant of the visa were not met.