• Lawyers in Sydney
• Lawyers in Melbourne
• Lawyers in Brisbane
• Lawyers in Perth
• Family lawyers
• Employment lawyers
• Criminal lawyers
• Wills and estates lawyers
• Find a lawyer

The Tribunal's review focused on one part of that health criterion: PIC 4005(1)(aa), which concerns completing a medical assessment required for a specified class of applicants. Mr Ishak told the Tribunal on 11 January 2024 that his medical assessment was scheduled for 25 January and provided a BUPA confirmation email dated 27 December 2023 (Consideration of Claims and Evidence, “Has the applicant undertaken a medical assessment”, para 5). Departmental records later showed that the required assessments had been completed and cleared on 12 February 2024 (para 6).

The Tribunal found that PIC 4005(1)(aa) was met. It did not determine that Mr Ishak met every requirement for the visa. Instead, it remitted the application to the Minister for reconsideration of the remaining criteria, directing that the specified PIC requirement was met (paras 7–8; Decision, para 1).

This was therefore a narrow, fact-specific review decision about completion of a required medical assessment. It was not a decision granting the visa.

Why the court decided this way

The decision was made by the Migration and Refugee Division of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, with P. Maishman as the member. The Tribunal identified the issue as whether Mr Ishak met PIC 4005, as required by the visa criteria (Consideration of Claims and Evidence, para 1).

The relevant wording of PIC 4005(1)(aa), reproduced in the attachment, requires an applicant who falls within a class specified by ministerial instrument to undertake the medical assessment specified in that instrument and be assessed by the specified person, unless a Medical Officer of the Commonwealth decides otherwise. The Tribunal identified IMMI 15/144, “Required Medical Assessment”, as the relevant instrument (Consideration of Claims and Evidence, “Has the applicant undertaken a medical assessment”, para 1).

The Tribunal then applied that framework in stages:

1. The relevant class. The Tribunal found that Mr Ishak was a citizen of Sri Lanka, based on the Sri Lankan passport provided to the Department. It noted that Sri Lanka was not listed in column A of Schedule 1 of IMMI 15/144. It therefore treated Schedule 2 of the instrument as prescribing the relevant medical assessments for him (paras 2–3).

2. Whether the applicant fell within that class. The Tribunal found that the visa involved a temporary stay of six months or more and that Mr Ishak was over 11 years old. On those facts, it concluded that he was in a class specified in column C of Schedule 2 (para 3).

3. Whether an exception applied. The Tribunal stated that there was nothing before it indicating that a Medical Officer of the Commonwealth had decided that Mr Ishak did not need to undertake the specified assessment (para 4).

4. Whether the assessment had been completed. The Tribunal relied on Departmental records showing that the required medical assessments had been undertaken and cleared on 12 February 2024 (paras 5–6).

Those findings led directly to the conclusion that the requirements in PIC 4005(1)(aa) were met (para 7). Since the Tribunal's finding addressed that criterion rather than all visa requirements, it remitted the application for the Minister to reconsider the remaining criteria (para 8).

Before and after state of the law

The decision does not purport to change or develop the law. It applies the text of PIC 4005(1)(aa), cl 485.216 and IMMI 15/144 to the facts recorded in the reasons. The source text provides no account of the legal position before this decision, no comparison with earlier cases, and no indication that the Tribunal was asked to reconsider the meaning or validity of those provisions.

The rule described in the decision is limited: where the applicant is within a class specified by the relevant instrument, the required medical assessment must be undertaken and the applicant must be assessed by the specified person, unless a Medical Officer of the Commonwealth decides otherwise. The Tribunal's conclusion turned on its findings about Mr Ishak's citizenship, age, intended length of stay, and completion and clearance of the required assessments.

The attachment also reproduces other parts of PIC 4005, including requirements relating to tuberculosis, threats to public health or the Australian community, health-care costs or access, and any requested undertaking for follow-up assessment. But the Tribunal did not decide those other matters in its reasons. It expressly identified the issue in this review as the medical-assessment requirement and remitted the application for reconsideration of the remaining visa criteria. The decision should not be read as resolving those other health matters.

Key passages with plain-English translation

“The issue in this review is whether the visa applicant meets Public Interest Criterion (PIC) 4005 as required by the criteria for the grant of the visa.” (Consideration of Claims and Evidence, para 1)

Plain English: The Tribunal defined the question it was deciding. The reasons do not claim to decide every possible issue affecting the visa application.

“Column A of Schedule 1 of IMMI 15/144 contains a list of countries of citizenship, and Sri Lanka is not listed.” (Consideration of Claims and Evidence, “Has the applicant undertaken a medical assessment”, para 2)

Plain English: The Tribunal used the instrument's country categories to identify which schedule of medical requirements applied to this applicant.

“Departmental records demonstrate that the applicant underwent the required medical assessments, and his medical assessments were cleared on 12 February 2024.” (same section, para 6)

Plain English: The decisive evidence of completion was the Department's record that the assessments had been done and cleared by that date.

“For these reasons the requirements in PIC 4005(1)(aa) are met.” (same section, para 7)

Plain English: The Tribunal's finding was specifically about PIC 4005(1)(aa), not a finding that every visa criterion was satisfied.

“the appropriate course is for the Tribunal to remit the matter to the Minister for reconsideration of the remaining criteria for the visa.” (same section, para 8)

Plain English: The Minister was to reconsider the parts of the visa application that the Tribunal had not determined.

Paragraph numbering restarts under the different headings in the reasons. The section name is included above to make clear which numbered paragraph is being referred to.

What fact patterns trigger this precedent

This decision is most relevant as an example where a visa refusal turns on whether a required medical assessment under PIC 4005(1)(aa) has been completed, and the assessment is completed and cleared while the matter is before the Tribunal. Its reasoning also shows the factual steps the Tribunal recorded: identifying the applicant's citizenship, checking the applicable categories in IMMI 15/144, considering the visa's intended duration and the applicant's age, checking whether a Medical Officer of the Commonwealth had dispensed with the assessment, and confirming whether the required assessment had been undertaken.

The decision does not establish that these facts will resolve every medical-criterion dispute. It does not discuss an applicant who failed to complete an assessment, one whose results were not cleared, a dispute about the applicable class, or an exception decided by a Medical Officer of the Commonwealth. Nor does it determine how the other elements of PIC 4005 should be applied.

The practical legal-research value is consequently narrow: it illustrates the Tribunal's application of the specified-assessment limb of PIC 4005 to the record before it, and the use of remittal when that limb is resolved but other visa criteria remain for consideration.

How later courts have treated it

The supplied decision contains no discussion of later cases, and no later judicial or tribunal treatment is included in the material provided. It therefore cannot establish whether later courts or tribunals have followed, distinguished, or otherwise treated this decision.

The decision itself cites no other judgments. Its stated legal materials are s 65 of the Migration Act 1958, cl 485.216 of Schedule 2, PIC 4005 in Schedule 4, and IMMI 15/144. The precedent-relationship field is therefore empty: the source does not identify any case-law relationship to extract.

Still-open questions

The decision leaves several matters unresolved because they were outside the issue it decided:

• Whether Mr Ishak met the other criteria for the visa. The Tribunal remitted the application for reconsideration of those remaining criteria (Consideration of Claims and Evidence, para 8).
• Whether the other health requirements reproduced in the attachment were met. The reasons do not make findings on the tuberculosis, public-health, community-danger, health-care cost or access, or follow-up undertaking provisions.
• Whether a Medical Officer of the Commonwealth had made any relevant decision beyond the Tribunal's finding that nothing before it indicated that the applicant was excused from the specified assessment (same section, para 4).
• How PIC 4005(1)(aa) applies where the relevant facts differ, such as a different citizenship category, age, intended period of stay, or assessment status. This decision does not answer those hypothetical questions.

The decision's disposition marks the boundary of its finding: PIC 4005(1)(aa) was met on the evidence recorded, and the remaining visa criteria were returned for reconsideration. This is general legal information, not legal advice. Zoe can make mistakes. Before acting on or relying on this analysis, have a qualified Australian lawyer check it.