Tannoi (Migration)

This matter concerned an application for a Child (Residence) (Class BT) visa, subclass 802, made by the applicant. The primary dispute revolved around whether the applicant met Public Interest Criterion (PIC) 4007, specifically PIC 4007(1)(aa), which requires certain applicants to undergo a specified medical assessment. The decision was made by Brendan Darcy, a Member of the Tribunal.

The legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicant had satisfied the requirements of PIC 4007(1)(aa) at the time of the delegate's decision to refuse the visa. This criterion mandates that an applicant, if falling within a specified class, must undertake a medical assessment by an approved provider unless a Medical Officer of the Commonwealth decides otherwise. The applicant had failed to provide evidence of undertaking this assessment within the timeframe requested by the Department, leading to the initial refusal.

The Tribunal reasoned that while the applicant had not provided the required evidence to the Department before the refusal, subsequent actions and accessed records indicated compliance with PIC 4007(1)(aa). Specifically, the Tribunal noted that the applicant had an appointment for the required health examination after the delegate's decision, and importantly, records accessed by a Tribunal officer on 8 February 2021 showed that the applicant's health requirement had been recorded as 'finalised' on 27 January 2020. Based on this evidence, the Tribunal concluded that the requirements of PIC 4007(1)(aa) were met.

Consequently, the Tribunal remitted the application for reconsideration by the Minister, with a direction that the applicant had met the criteria under PIC 4007(1)(aa) for the Subclass 802 (Child) visa. The Minister was to proceed to consider the remaining criteria for the visa.