Australian Immigration Deporting People with a Disability

[Guest The Pom Queen]

Advocates say they're seeing nearly a dozen cases a year of disabled people, and sometime their whole families, being denied permanent residency. The government believes their disability will be a burden on the health care system.

 

Biswajit Banik and Sarmin Sayeed's son Arko was diagnosed with autism as a toddler.

 

"It wasn't nice when the doctor told you that your son would be different for the rest of his life … he will never be independent," said Sarmin.

 

The Baniks are both qualified doctors. They moved to Melbourne from Bangladesh in 2007 on an AusAID scholarship.

 

Nine years later and Sarmin is juggling a PhD in women’s health while working as a General Practitioner in suburban Melbourne.

 

Her husband Biswajit is a university lecturer at Monash University. Arko is 12 years old.

 

"Arko has a mild spectrum of autism," Biswajit said. "We cannot change autism but we can minimise its progression"

 

Autism 1

With the help of special schooling and private tutoring, Arko has made progress. He reads at a year two level and is learning to cook. The Baniks believe he will one day be able to work and live independently.

 

"It doesn't matter whether he becomes a doctor or an engineer or a chef or a plumber, I don't mind," said Biswajit.

 

"You work hard, you have your good life, you know end of the day, you know you are a contributing citizen."

 

Two years ago the Baniks decided to make Australia their home and applied for permanent residency. After a tense eight month wait, their application was rejected for one reason: Arko.

 

In their rejection letter it said: “the applicant would be likely to require health care or community services during the period specified above…. provision of these services would be likely to result in a significant cost to the Aus community in the areas of health care and/or community services.”

 

A significant cost is defined as over $40,000 in government services throughout Arko’s life.

 

"For the hypothetical person that is true, but not for Arko," Biswajit said. "We have demonstrated that we never accessed any state disability services, commonwealth disability services.

 

"Every time we see a specialist, speech therapist, psychologist, we paid from our own pocket."

 

The Baniks tried to appeal the decision, but in December last year a government tribunal knocked them back.

 

They then appealed directly to the immigration minister, Peter Dutton, who has now been considering their case for nine months.

 

"If the honorable minister makes the decision not in our favour then we need to leave this country in 28 days," Biswajit said.

 

"So, it put us into a lot of uncertainties. We work in a pretty demanding job ... this is actually taking toll on my life, I have, I can't take it anymore."

 

Autism 3

The practice of deporting disabled people is more common that you would think. President of the National Ethnic Disability Alliance Suresh Rajan says he sees two to three new cases every month.

 

"We have a person who has a PhD in men's health…. and she's a practicing general practitioner. They are two people who are making a massive contribution to the Australian society.

 

"What we're looking at there is the commoditisation of a person with disability. We are breaking down a person to a number and that is completely inappropriate."

 

Under Australian law the migration act is exempt from the disability discrimination act. The immigration department says this policy is not discriminatory towards disabled people as all applicants must cost the taxpayer less than $40,000 in health care.

 

"We've probably dealt with something in the vicinity of about 18 to 20 cases in the last two years and in not one of those cases has it come under the threshold of $40,000," Suresh said.

 

The Banik family have found themselves at the centre of a growing movement - with hundreds of people joining protests around Melbourne asking the Immigration Minister to let them stay.

 

More than 37,000 people signed an online petition to help the family, with Sarmin saying shee "actually didn't believe" that so many would get behind it and support them.

 

While The Feed was filming with the Banik family, they received some live changing news from their lawyer.

 

"Minister Peter Dutton actually approved our primary residency, it was too good to be true," Bisjawit said, tearful.

 

Finally we got this to stay in Australia permanently for my son, you know, this huge struggle we had but at the end, Australia listened to us. That is unbelievable."

 

For the Baniks this was a good outcome. But Suresh Rajan says many more will never experience this moment.

[Nemesis]

Sorry, but I don't see the problem. If people are supposed to meet a certain set of conditions to get PR then they should have to meet them. Why should the rules be bent because they arrived on a temp visa that didn't require a medical? Otherwise everyone with a dubious condition visa-wise would be coming in on temp visas and getting PR by the back door? In which case you may as well scrap the medical tests anyway!

[Quoll]

I agree with Nemesis - just because you are here temporarily doesn't mean you should get a free ride past the regulations that everyone else had to comply with for PR. I'd rather they didn't bend the rules.

 

I remember that family a few years ago with child with Down Syndrome and dad was a doc in rural Victoria (where they were short of doctors) - the local community rallied to support them and the rules were bent to give the family PR and they promptly left the community which had gone to great lengths to support them - not a nice taste!

[Nemesis]

I agree with Nemesis - just because you are here temporarily doesn't mean you should get a free ride past the regulations that everyone else had to comply with for PR. I'd rather they didn't bend the rules.

 

I remember that family a few years ago with child with Down Syndrome and dad was a doc in rural Victoria (where they were short of doctors) - the local community rallied to support them and the rules were bent to give the family PR and they promptly left the community which had gone to great lengths to support them - not a nice taste!

I remember that one, a typical example of why the rules shouldn't be bent. If people are just going to be allowed to circumvent them in this way why have the rule in the first place.

 

Its similar to the 190 state-jumping issue. I will never understand why that gaping hole has not been filled. Apply for state sponsorship, pledge yourself to the state for two years, get the visa -then move to somewhe completely different and nev even set foot in the sponsoring state. While someone who really wants to live there loses out.

[Guest]

It's very emotive to use the term deported - they were not going to be deported, they had a temporary visa that was going to expire.

 

There are many people who have temporary visas that would like to stay but don't meet the requirements and indeed many people with health conditions/children with health conditions that would love to migrate but can't.

 

Whether the medical assessment is fair or not is a completely different question.

[Nemesis]

It's very emotive to use the term deported - they were not going to be deported, they had a temporary visa that was going to expire.

 

There are many people who have temporary visas that would like to stay but don't meet the requirements and indeed many people with health conditions/children with health conditions that would love to migrate but can't.

 

Whether the medical assessment is fair or not is a completely different question.

 

There are many visa conditions that are unfair.

 

Being refused PR as a spouse because you haven't got a perm job because you don't have a PR visa and therefore can't live in Aus with your citizen spouse and prove you are a genuine couple isn't fair either.

 

But as other people are told, that's the law. Tough luck. As other people are told, why should an exception be made, and if its made, where do we stop? When does the exception become the rule.

[Wooba]

Its similar to the 190 state-jumping issue. I will never understand why that gaping hole has not been filled. Apply for state sponsorship, pledge yourself to the state for two years, get the visa -then move to somewhe completely different and nev even set foot in the sponsoring state. While someone who really wants to live there loses out.

 

It is possible that it's illegal to confine where a person lives?

 

In Canada we have something similar to the 190 but it applies only to the province of Quebec (the French speaking one). That province can actually pick their own candidates that meet their language requirements and it's a fast track for those people. They are then expected to remain in Quebec for a minimum amount of time. 2, 3, 5 years I'm not sure what it is. I know of many people that just moved elsewhere instead (it's become a popular method for Chinese people to enter the country then move to Vancouver from what I've read) and nobody has ever pursued them over it. Why? I'm fairly certain it's because the constitution specifically forbids confining people to a certain part of the country. I'm not a lawyer, but I can say with confidence that any judge who oversaw a challenge to this condition would throw it out immediately.

 

Perhaps the Australia constitution has a similar provision?

[TiaCapan]

I remember that one, a typical example of why the rules shouldn't be bent. If people are just going to be allowed to circumvent them in this way why have the rule in the first place.

 

Its similar to the 190 state-jumping issue. I will never understand why that gaping hole has not been filled. Apply for state sponsorship, pledge yourself to the state for two years, get the visa -then move to somewhe completely different and nev even set foot in the sponsoring state. While someone who really wants to live there loses out.

 

 

All very well until youve spent several months applying for any and every job, can't get any work, resulting in your life savings being depleted, so your only choice is to move interstate.....

[Nemesis]

All very well until youve spent several months applying for any and every job, can't get any work, resulting in your life savings being depleted, so your only choice is to move interstate.....

I don't have a problem with people who have tried, then said to the sponsiring state, sorry, no jobs we have to move. I feel for those who can't get jobs, but at least you have tried.

 

What I have an issue with is those who accept state sponsorship then don't even VISIT that state but instantly migrate to somewhere different -and as can be seen on here many of them even announce their intentions not to honour the agreement before they even get the visa!

[silencio]

Where to draw the line? Now all prospective migrants with children with a mild autism disorder should be invited to apply for a visa then?

 

I doubt that this decision would have been made without the noise of the media and of course, lets say for example if one parent is as a plumber and the other one a stay-at-home mum and they would have appealed without media + public attention.

 

 

What completely gobsmacked me was this statement of the dad:

"So, it put us into a lot of uncertainties. We work in a pretty demanding job ... this is actually taking toll on my life, I have, I can't take it anymore."

 

Well, in Bangladesh - both parents migrated from there - they would pay out-of-pocket for medical costs anyway and life down there is full of uncertainties and stigma of austism (hubby has lots of relatives from Bangladesh and we have Bangladshi friends).

 

Now Bangladesh has lost 2 more doctors as they came on a Scholarship and THEN decided to stay in Australia for good!

 

I don't like the fact that there are loopholes as both applicants taken a high risk to apply for PR where the rule 'one fails all fail' rule applies and they got away with it but other people with disabled children will never get that change to migrate.

 

The law should really be the law but because of the professional reputation of the appealing applicants and that media hype Peter Dutton got cold feet.

Edited September 2, 2016 by silencio