Doctor refused PR Visa because his son has Downs

[Guest The Pom Queen]

I am sure a lot of you are aware of the case that is currently being fought in Victoria at the moment about the German Doctor who is here on a temp visa and has just been refused PR and told he has to leave Australia in 2010 because his son with Downs will be a drain on the health service. There is an uproar at the minute over here and he is hoping to get the decision overturned. For those that don't know anything about the case take a look at this article (I have cut and pasted from the Herald Sun) if he wins it could open up the doors to other families who have also been refused visas because of health costs.

 

 

 

A MIGRANT doctor and his family are being forced to leave Australia, and the Victorian town that desperately needs him, because his son has Down syndrome.

Dr Bernhard Moeller answered a call from the Federal Government and the Horsham community two years ago, and moved from Germany to become the town's only permanent specialist physician.

But the Department of Immigration and Citizenship this week rejected an application from Dr Moeller and his family for permanent residency because his 13-year-old son, Lukas, has Down syndrome and does not fit the bureaucracy's health criteria.

On advice from a government doctor, the department wrote to Dr Moeller saying his son had been assessed as a burden on Australian taxpayers and could not be granted permanent residency.

A copy of the decision said care for Lukas was "likely to result in significant costs to the Australian community in health care and community services".

Angry? Send Immigation Minister Chris Evans an email about this decision.

But Dr Moeller said his son would always be cared for by family and his needs at school were not prohibitive. "I have the means to look after him and I will look after him," he said.

Horsham, with a population of 20,000, is enraged at the prospect of losing its only internal medicine specialist and residents rallied outside Dr Moeller's practice yesterday, demanding the decision be overturned.

As well as his private practice, Dr Moeller fills a key role at the Wimmera Base Hospital, which serves 50,000 people in the region.

"We are desperate for doctors in the country and the Government says we must get skilled labour from overseas," said Business Horsham's Andrea Cross.

"The decision to reject residency is crazy. He has a disabled child but we've got great support for him here."

Dr Moeller said he was hurt by the rejection, but thanked the community for its support.

"We feel rejected, not welcome any more, by the Australian Government," Dr Moeller said.

"But we've had huge support here in the community."

Dr Moeller is in Australia on a 457 temporary working visa that expires in 2010.

He and his family searched for the best place to raise a family and his wife, Isabella, said Australia was the preferred choice because of the support it offered disabled children.

Lukas attends a mainstream primary school and has an integration aide and speech therapy.

He plays football, cricket, golf and table tennis, and his parents say he has no difficulties coping.

Ms Moeller said Down syndrome was graded from zero to 100, with zero representing a fully dependent sufferer and 100 the mildest affliction. Lukas was rated close to 100.

"It's the worst thing that's happened to me – worse even than when they told me Lukas had Down syndrome," she said. "We fought for years against discrimination in Germany against Lukas.

"We wanted to make sure he got the best quality of life, and when we looked all over the world we decided Australia was the right place to live.

"We came to Australia in April 2006 on a temporary residency visa, and we told everybody then we wanted to stay in Australia as permanent residents, but they didn't mention anything like this even possibly happening.

"Now we have to start fighting all over again against discrimination."

Down Syndrome Victoria yesterday slammed the Federal Government's decision.

"This decision is disgraceful and discriminatory," Down Syndrome Victoria executive officer Catherine McAlpine said.

"The department are not looking at Lukas as an individual or seeing his potential.

"Instead, they are making assumptions based on their outmoded understanding of intellectual disability."

Ms McAlpine said the case was one of a number where people with Down syndrome were refused residency automatically because they were judged to be a drain on Australian resources.

"It is outrageous that in the same year the Australian Government ratified the UN Convention on the Rights of People with Disabilities, it is effectively stripping this young man of his human rights," Ms McAlpine said.

Immigration Minister Chris Evans's office referred questions regarding the Moeller case to his department.

A departmental spokesman said officials were legally bound to reject an application if a Commonwealth medical officer deemed the applicant posed a significant cost burden.

"It is long-standing government policy that high-cost medical conditions are a consideration in visa decisions," the spokesman said, adding that the family could appeal against the decision to the Migration Review Tribunal and, failing that, to the minister.

Dr Moeller said the family would appeal.

Horsham hospital Wimmera Health Group chief executive Chris Scott said he was very disappointed at the decision to refuse Dr Moeller's family permanent residency.

Mr Scott said Dr Moeller's was the only permanent position at the hospital, and two other vacancies were unfilled.

"We recruited him specifically from Germany," Mr Scott said.

"We think it's very disappointing that such a decision can be made when rural Victoria is crying out for senior medical appointments."

[Guest Gollywobbler]

Hiya

 

This topic has already been debated at some length on this thread:

 

http://www.pomsinoz.com/forum/news-gossip-chat/46953-now-what-do-you-think-about-australia.html

 

My personal view is that the media are whipping up an emotional frenzy which is misguided.

 

The law is a game of chess. Dr Moeller's lawyers may be playing a tactical game with the Minister via the media attention. Since I am sure that he will not be using a run-of-the-mill migration agent who simply acts as a scribe for one visa application after another but will be using the best solicitors in Melbourne - or possibly even in Sydney - I imagine that Dr Moeller's legal team could be behind the media attention.

 

Alternatively it could simply be that the local rags are short of other stories at present because the media are the most cynical mob on the planet in my experience.

 

Dr Downes is in an identical situation to Dr Moeller. Dr Downes has made no public statements at all.

 

Two different legal teams, two different approaches, I strongly suspect.

 

Best wishes

 

Gill

[Guest The Pom Queen]

Oops it just shows there are sooooo many posts on PIO you just can't keep up with them. Gill please can you delete my post as I don't want to duplicate.

Kate

[Guest Gollywobbler]

Hi Kate

 

I will delete your thread if you insist but my instinct is to leave it running for the time being because the other one was in a different section of the forum. People who actually know the area that Dr Moeller lives and works in may have quite a bit to say, I reckon.

 

I'd love to know the truth about whether this is the legal team using the media for tactical purposes - in which case, they must have their reasons and far be it from me to comment.

 

Or is it the ruddy media exploiting the child for the sake of a tear-jerking story that will sell copy when the media can find out in five minutes flat that the case has to go to the MRT and then to the Court, to the Minister, or both?

 

My suspicion is that the media rats know full well that they are not reporting the case accurately.

 

But I'd like to leave the thread open and see what others think if that is OK with you?

 

Best wishes

 

Gill

[Guest The Pom Queen]

Hi Kate

 

I will delete your thread if you insist but my instinct is to leave it running for the time being because the other one was in a different section of the forum. People who actually know the area that Dr Moeller lives and works in may have quite a bit to say, I reckon.

 

I'd love to know the truth about whether this is the legal team using the media for tactical purposes - in which case, they must have their reasons and far be it from me to comment.

 

Or is it the ruddy media exploiting the child for the sake of a tear-jerking story that will sell copy when the media can find out in five minutes flat that the case has to go to the MRT and then to the Court, to the Minister, or both?

 

My suspicion is that the media rats know full well that they are not reporting the case accurately.

 

But I'd like to leave the thread open and see what others think if that is OK with you?

 

Best wishes

 

Gill

 

 

Hi Gill

That's fine, just didn't want to replicate the post. Unfortunately, like yourself I have a feeling it is the media exploiting the child for a good story, but then that's the media for you.

[Guest Tom Fleming]

id be interested in this post / update on the story as it unfolds as my mum and dad would love to come over here permanently but have always felt that there were too many issues surrounding my brother who has downs to be warranted / follow up there interest to come over.

[Guest The Pom Queen]

id be interested in this post / update on the story as it unfolds as my mum and dad would love to come over here permanently but have always felt that there were too many issues surrounding my brother who has downs to be warranted / follow up there interest to come over.

 

 

This is the latest update reported in the Herald Sun. It looks like there has been a similar case in Perth and the ruling has been over turned.

 

A MIGRANT doctor desperate to stay in Australia has been asked to allow his 13-year-old Down syndrome son to submit to another medical exam.

But Horsham GP Bernhard Moeller angrily refused the request last week, despite fearing it could affect the outcome of his visa review.

"Lukas has Down syndrome. That's not going to change," Dr Moeller said. "It makes me angry. We've done the medicals twice. It's just more bureaucracy."

Dr Moeller answered a call from the Federal Government and the local community two years ago when he moved from Germany to become the town's only specialist physician. His family were medically examined twice as part of that process. The records remain available to the department.

His visa is due to expire in March 2010, but he warned it would be difficult to stay without Medicare cover, which ends next March.

"I'm working under the system, yet won't have access to the cover myself. I don't even have the words to explain that," Dr Moeller said.

"Six months is the most I can wait. If there is still no decision, I will actively look for work and somewhere for the family to live in Germany."

The Moeller family received messages of support from around Australia when their plight emerged last month.

But Dr Moeller said: "I'm worried. Some nights I can't sleep. Everyone keeps saying it will work out OK, but you can't be certain. We want to plan for the future."

Immigration Minister Chris Evans last week overturned a ruling against a midwife in Western Australia, whose son also has Down syndrome, who was in a similar predicament.

[Guest Gollywobbler]

Hi Kate & Tom

 

There are some further developments which are highly significant for anybody concerned with possible migration to Oz with a Down Syndrome child in particular but also with a range of other problems.

 

Please see this thread on the Go Matilda forum.

 

Down family breaks visa barrier on immigration - Topic Powered by eve community

 

This thread is relevant as well:

 

Doctor to fight visa refusal over Down Syndrome son - Topic Powered by eve community

 

Alan Collett of Go Matilda is obviously taking an interest in this issue and lobbying by people like Alan can and does help to get the law changed sometimes.

 

I think it is an immense comfort that the Minister realises that something needs to be done about these cases and that leaving families in turmoil for six years is absolutely not on.

 

Best wishes

 

Gill

[Guest Tom Fleming]

Thanks for the update....id be interested to hear anything else in the continued Dr's story.

[Guest Gollywobbler]

Hi Tom

 

Be in no doubt. Potentially the issues facing your parents would be immense because it takes a long time to break the barriers down in cases like these.

 

The background to all this, in simple terms, is as follows:

 

Because of the way the Aussie migration legislation is worded, for many years solicitors in Oz believed that is was not possible to challenge the Opinion of the Medical Officer of the Commonwealth about whether or not someone meets the Health Requirement for migration to Oz. It was believed that there was no legal machinery via which the MOC could be challenged, in effect.

 

The Health Requirement which causes all the hassle is Public Interest Criterion 4005 in the Migration Regulations 1994. I won't quote it at length here because it is quite lengthy and one is limited to 8,000 characters in a post.

 

In 2001 there was litigation against the Minister for Immi in a case called Blair. The child at the centre of the case was a boy of about 10 with Down Syndrome. I'm a lawyer (but not Australian qualified) so I am used to reading reports of Court cases. The litigation in Blair was a hopeless attempt, in my view, because the wording of PIC 4005 never has supported what they were trying to say. However, the family were immensely wealthy and so they made what I think was a futile application to the Court.

 

I'm not a medic so I have no idea about the medical evidence in Blair. From the sound of it, the child was actually pretty severely disabled by Down Syndrome. It was common ground between the parties that the child would never be able to lead a normal life when he grew up. Therefore if he had been allowed to migrate permanently he would undoubtedly have become eligible for the top whack, I suspect, of Australia's Disability Support Pension:

 

Disability Support Pension

 

The family tried to argue that a large Trust fund had been set up for the child so he would never need to work anyway, plus he would be so wealthy that he would not qualify for DSP because it is means-tested in Oz (unlike in the UK) unless the applicant is "permanently blind" which the Blair child was not. Therefore they tried to say that potential eligibility for DSP and all the ancillary Benefits that would flow from it were irrelevant because they would never be claimed. They argued that there would be no cost to Medicare either, because they could plainly afford the finest medical attention that money can buy.

 

I think the family's argument was specious because that is not how PIC 4005 works. 4005 brings it down to the lowest common denominator: the visa applicant has no money and therefore would need the help of the State one way or another, to a degree which would be a "significant cost" to the Aussie tax-payer. Permanent Residency in Oz is a package deal: with it comes an automatic right to Medicare and an automatic right to be given State Benefits if necessary. The Australian Govt has always maintained the stance that if you migrate to Oz then you get the full package and it is not possible to contract out of bits and pieces of it because that would create a two tier society. It would enable positive discrimination in favour of the wealthy and I completely agree that that is not on. Hence I am convinced that it was futile litigation.

 

After Blair there followed a string of Court cases, all trying to argue different bits of the coin. Some of the legal fictions invented by the Judges in some of them were just plain strange, too, but they are now largely irrelevant because of Robinson in 2005.

 

I think the DIAC legal team and the MOC between them completely misunderstood the ratio decidendi in Blair. They appear to have thought that Blair had provided a legal authority for the proposition that medical cases can be decided on the basis of generic information about the condition itself (often 20 years out of date information at that) rather than deciding them on the basis of the specific medical condition of the specific visa applicant in question. Nothing in the Blair judgement even mentions the notion so I simply fail to understand how DIAC & the MOC could have misunderstood the judgement so completely - but they appear to have managed to do so.

 

Therefore the MOC appears to have thought that a case of Down Syndrome would automatically lead to a visa refusal because of the decision in Blair, when this is not what Blair decided at all. Not by any stretch of the imagination. I think Blair probably was correctly decided on its own facts because it does seem that the child was severely affected by Downs.

 

FFWD to 2004 & 2005 and the Robinson case. Again, it concerned a boy who was about 10 when the Court dealt with it in November 2005. Mrs Robinson is a midwife in Perth. The crux of Robinson and the reason why it has become the new milestone is that the child is not severely affected by Downs. Master Robinson only has a mild degree of disability and therefore there is no reason to suppose that he will not be able to lead a normal life once he grows up. The litigation forced the Minister for Immi to accept that every single one of the cases involving a medical condition must be determined on its own facts alone and not according to any vague, generic criteria about the condition.

 

That said, the MOC doctors continue to make unforgiveable mistakes, as happened to one of our PiO members earlier this year. They are overworked, underpaid GPs employed by the civil service and why on earth any of them prefer to spend all day long pushing a pen instead of prodding a patient is completely beyond me. I simply cannot understand why one would go to all the hassle of becoming a doctor if one does not want to help a sick person. I thought that was the whole purpose of Medicine, but still....

 

I don't think it is possible to say that Dr Moeller's case will have the same outcome as Robinson has now (finally) had. The whole world knows that Dr Moeller's son has Down Syndrome but there has been no publicity about the severity of the child's condition. Similarly Dr Downes in Sydney has revealed nothing publlcly about the severity of his own child's condition, which I am pretty sure is an austistic spectrum disorder completely unrelated to Down Syndrome, but the principles established in Robinson apply regardless of what the actual medical condition might be.

 

And "permanent blindness" will always be the exception to the rule anyway because of the fact that that condition is the only one which gives an automatic entitlement to the full rate of Disability Support Pension without any sort of means-testing. Nobody should be in any doubt about this.

 

I think it is brilliant that Senator Evans has enough commonsense to realise that the situation with these cases cannot continue to lurch along as it currently does. (Personally I think that he is the best thing that has ever happened to the Australian Immigration system, but doubtless many people would disgree with my view.)

 

However I do think that any significant changes are likely to be a long time in coming. I also think that the child cases which also involve parents in the medical profession will lead the change because the doctors like Dr Downes and Dr Moeller - regardless of the sorts of conditions that they treat in their own working lives - will undoubtedly see to it that the MOC is prevented from relying from vague assumptions - often hopelessly out of date ones - about specific medical conditions in the future. And I would hope that both doctors will give the Minister severe earache. Plus both doctors have hospitals etc backing them to the hilt about the medical details. Mrs Robinson has had that as well.

 

So I think the medical profession will lead the way in getting the present muddle resolved but I do think it will take time. I reckon 5 - 10 years, probably.

 

Best wishes

 

Gill

[Guest Tom Fleming]

Wow.....that is a real insight to the litigation world and one that is obviously very contentious and is trying to be faught from many angles without that much success. At least families know where they stand (for now) and if they have the money / strength / patience then anything could happen!

 

Thanks again for the posts.

 

Tom

[Guest The Pom Queen]

Gill

Thank you for once again your in depth knowledge and wisdom. Where would we be without you!!

[Guest The Pom Queen]

Here is the latest update from the Herald Sun this morning for those following the case. The Dr appealed and has once again been refused PR. However, it looks like the Immigration Minister MAY overturn the decision:

 

GERMAN doctor Bernhard Moeller has appealed to Immigration Minister Chris Evans after a tribunal upheld a decision to refuse his family permanent residency because of his Down Syndrome son Lukas.

Dr Moeller, a specialist physician, brought his family to Horsham, in Victoria's west, two years ago on a 457 temporary visa to help fill a shortage of general practitioners in the town of 14,000 people.

With the visa due to expire in 2010, Dr Moeller and his family have sought permanent residency.

"I'm very disappointed and tired - it's been a hard time for my family," Dr Moeller told AAP.

"The people here have been very supportive - we wouldn't have survived in Australia without their support."

Dr Moeller said that soon after the Migration Review Tribunal upheld the Immigration Department's controversial decision to deny the family residency yesterday, he received a call from the office of Immigration Minister Chris Evans suggesting he might overturn the decision.

"That gives us hope," Dr Moeller said.

"They asked me if I wanted this to be done quickly and I said yes."

Dr Moeller said he won't be supplying any further information to the minister's office because it was all given to the tribunal.

"We've exchanged emails with me asking the minister to intervene in this case," he said.

He said the tribunal told him that 13-year-old Lukas does not fulfil the criteria of the immigration laws and regulations. A commonwealth medical officer had assessed that Lukas's medical condition was likely to result in significant and ongoing cost to the Australian community.

But Dr Moeller said his family has the financial means to care for Lukas.

"I have the means to look after him and I will look after him," he said.

[Mike@Bonbeach]

Call me a cynic but I believe there could be politics at work here.

The Doctor has been refused a permanent visa all the way through the process up to but not including the Immigration Minister. Whats the betting that in a week or so his visa rejection will be over ruled by the Minister then The ALP can broadcast what a caring government we have.

More brownie points for Kevin 747.

Mike.

[Guest The Pom Queen]

Well, he has now been granted PR!!

GERMAN migrant doctor Bernhard Moeller said he was shocked when told he and his family could stay in Australia.

Dr Moeller said he did not initially believe the woman who rang to tell him he and his family had been granted permanent residency, saying he had to get her to repeat herself a number of times.

"I had to ask them several times to confirm it: so we have permanent residency? She said: yes," Dr Moeller said.

"I didn't expect it to happen so quickly, it has been less than 24 hours (since the visa was refused).

"We were hoping to hear something from the department as they spoke to us yesterday (Tuesday) minutes after the refusal from the tribunal."

Are you pleased with the Government's decision? Add you comments here.

Dr Moeller, who took up the post as a much-needed specialist physician in the Victorian town of Horsham almost three years ago, had twice earlier been refused permanent residency because his son Lukas was considered too much of a burden on taxpayers.

Lukas, 13, suffers from Down syndrome.

The Department of Immigration initially refused the family permanent residency and the Herald Sun today exclusively reported their appeal had been knocked back by the Migration Review Tribunal - leaving Mr Evans the last hope for the family to stay.

Dr Moeller said Lukas was very happy with the decision but it had been a stressful and draining time for the whole family.

"The bureaucratic process was disappointing," Dr Moeller said.

"I never had any problems with Australia.

"We have been lucky with the amount of support we have experienced from all around Australia, Australians are such friendly people who look after each other."

Senator Evans said he received Dr Moeller's application for ministerial intervention this morning and approved it several hours later.

''It was clear to me that Dr Moeller and his family are making a very valuable contribution to their local community,'' Senator Evans told the Senate.

''Dr Moeller is providing a much needed service in the area, the family have integrated very well and they have substantial community support.''

''I'm pleased they have chosen to call Australia home,'' he said. Senator Evans said he regretted the stress the family had been subjected to throughout their application process.

Mr Evans also announced a review of laws which meant Dr Moeller's son was automatically rejected in his permanent residency application because he suffered Down syndrome.

Victoria and other states will be asked whether they support individual residency applications from families who face circumstances where they offer community benefit but, because their child has health difficulties, are presently excluded from permanent residency.

- with AAP

[Guest Gollywobbler]

Hi All

 

It is brilliant news fro Dr Moeller, and thank you to Kate for the news from the papers. I hope that the Minister has been similarly generous towards Dr Downes in Sydney.

 

It only took the Robinson family 6 years, a visit to the Tribunal, a trip to the Court and TWO appeals to the Minister in order for Mrs Robinson - a midwife in Perth - to obtain permission for her family to remain in Australia indefinitely.

 

However, the Minister's decision about Dr Moeller's case leaves the Law in rags and tatters. Hats off to Dr Moeller's legal team for such a speedy result but it is going to cause immense problems for the Minister.

 

I know a lass whose child is permanently blind. Their application for a subclass 136 visa (the forerunner of the current subclass 175 vsa) was refused because of the child's blindness. The lady's husband is not a doctor. I think he is something to do with IT though I am not sure.

 

With the current Minister content to ignore the medical criteria for migration to Oz, this family could now play a tactical game. They could find an employer willing to support them and they could more or less demand a visa from the Minister, given the precedent that he has now set for himself with Dr Moeller.

 

In terms of applying the law properly, I think the Minister has made a massive mistake which is likely to come back to haunt him.

 

Best wishes

 

Gill

[Guest burgledad]

I am an experienced Civil Engineer with a job offer and a 457 visa. We're hesitating in coming out because my youngest has moderate learning difficulties (no medical needs) and has to attend a special school. Her 457 has only been granted because the employer is willing to underwrite all sorts of costs; we've been advised that Permanent Residency looks unlikely.

 

Our view at the moment is that we do not want to be part of such a backward society. Scratch the surface.........

[Guest Gollywobbler]

Hi burgledad

 

Welcome to Poms in Oz.

 

This link provides more information about Dr Moeller's case and what the potential implications might be for other people:

 

German doctor wins visa - Topic Powered by eve community

 

Best wishes

 

Gill

[Guest burgledad]

Gill,

 

We're taking legal advice on likely PR outcome before moving on the 457, but it looks doomed. The success stories are newsworthy exceptions which does not provide acceptable odds.

 

cheers

Burgledad

[Guest The Pom Queen]

Gill,

 

We're taking legal advice on likely PR outcome before moving on the 457, but it looks doomed. The success stories are newsworthy exceptions which does not provide acceptable odds.

 

cheers

Burgledad

 

 

Just wanted to wish you luck, I don't suppose anyone can say what the outcome will be until your in that situation.

Hope everything works out for you.

Kate:wubclub:

[Guest cazandkeith]

i feel that we are going to be in the same situation as this and it has certainly made me feel depressed about the whole idea i didnt realise that anywhere could still be so backward in there understanding my son has downs and has been under no more medical care than any other child of his age, im gutted that this could be the end of the road before we have even started

[Guest The Pom Queen]

i feel that we are going to be in the same situation as this and it has certainly made me feel depressed about the whole idea i didnt realise that anywhere could still be so backward in there understanding my son has downs and has been under no more medical care than any other child of his age, im gutted that this could be the end of the road before we have even started

 

Hi Caz

I am sorry to hear this, don't give up without having a chat to a migration agent.

Big hugs

Kate:hug:

[Guest Gollywobbler]

i feel that we are going to be in the same situation as this and it has certainly made me feel depressed about the whole idea i didnt realise that anywhere could still be so backward in there understanding my son has downs and has been under no more medical care than any other child of his age, im gutted that this could be the end of the road before we have even started

 

Hi Caz & Keith

 

Welcome to Poms in Oz.

 

Do NOT despair. How old is your son, please?

 

There have been two very important cases concerning children with Down Syndrome recently. One of the two was Dr Moeller's case, which you have read about on this thread. I think young Lukas Moeller is either 13 or 14 and he has a pretty severe degree of Downs. It is common ground between the parties in the Moeller case that Lukas will never be able to lead a normal, independent adult life.

 

The other child in the other case is young David Robinson. He he now also about 13 or 14 but he only has a very mild degree of Downs and the expectation is that he will be able to lead a perfectly normal life once he grows up.

 

It is a waste of time talking to a migration agent in a situation like yours because they are not doctors and very, very few of them understand the medico legal criteria for migration anyway. A small handful do but they are still not doctors and only a doctor can provide you with competent guidance in this situation.

 

The thing to do is to arrange to consult a Panel Doctor approved by DIAC:

 

United Kingdom - Panel Doctors

 

If you would care to send me an e-mail (not a private message) I can give you a whole load of bumph to study about this situation. However I know nothing about medicine and nor do any migration agents.

 

So although I can describe exactly what the legal issues are, you would then need to ask a Panel Doctor to examine your child, consider specialists' reports etc and the PD will be able to tell you which way s/he thinks the Medical Officer of the Commonwealth (MOC) would be likely to jump about your son. Migration agents between them only deal with about 20% of all visa applications. Panel Doctors between them examine 100% of visa applicants, plus the Panel Doctors have all been informed about the medical and the legal issues in both the Moeller and the Robinson cases.

 

To send me an e-mail (so that I have your direct e-mail address (because there are attachments which are too big for the software on here) please click on my user name and select the e-mail option.

 

There is no reason why you cannot consult a Panel Doctor about your son before you go any further with considering whether or not your son's meds would be a show stopper in the visa process. Panel Doctors are mainly ordinary NHS GPs who do Panel Doctoring for DIAC on a private patient basis so you can consult any of them at any time. Expect to pay about £100 for the consultation though a nice PD might well charge less.

 

Best wishes

 

Gill

[Guest burgledad]

Hi Caz & Keith,

 

Gill is correct in that migration agents won't have a clue. One word of warning: our agent (VB) took the money for the 175 application and the DIAC fee knowing, it turns out, that the chances of success were negligible (see below). Sharks closer to home.

 

Our daughter (moderate learning difficulties) was assessed by a UK Panel Doctor as part of the 457 visa process but they are not batting for you at all. They simply report to the Medical Officer of the Commonwealth (MOC). Yes, these Aussies still like to claim to be part of the British Commonwealth when it suits them.

 

I've consulteded a Migration Barrister in Australia (two actually) and have written to Chris Evans (the Immigration Minister) for clarification; his office responded with an explanation of the law.

 

I'll try to make this clear but it doesn't make pleasant reading.

The MOC is totally empowered to make the decision on rigid legal criteria which is based on a generic theoretical cost formula. If your child may cost the State more than around $20k over 5 years then this is considered a Significant Cost; all the formulae seem to trigger this clause. At this stage in the process there is no legal avenue of appeal by applicants or even of intervention by the government.

 

The MOC consider medical costs and any other costs to the Australian community (Public Interest Criteria (PIC) 4006A); we failed on schooling cost estimates. The overall benefit that the family bring (skills, experience, trained at the cost of other countries' taxpayers etc) is not taken into consideration. A waiver MAY be granted which basically excludes the affected person from accessing state schools or medical support unless they pay. They say that this shows that they are not breaching a Convention on Rights for the Disabled but in effect this amounts to a constructive exclusion; schooling and medical costs are too high. My sponsoring employer has underwritten the waiver but the reality is that we have to fund the schooling and any medical bills, which is a deal breaker.

 

The next stage for us would be to apply for Permanent Residency whilst in Australia. This would fail because the law does not allow any other outcome (same criteria). We then go to tribunal which would again fail for the same reasons (no idea why this tribunal exists). Only at this stage can you ask the Minister to intervene and even with a good lawyer the chances of success are not good.

 

Australian migration law means that an application for a permanent (175) visa whilst offshore (outside Oz) will fail the MOC test every time. No other outcome is possible and there is no avenue of appeal whatsoever.

 

I know exactly how dissappointing this is but you need to be fully aware of the situation before wasting hope and money on such a society.

 

Cheers

John

[Guest burgledad]

I forgot to add that the MOC will ask for school reports, medical reports, educational psychologist reports etc for your child after reading the Panel Doctor's first report. All of which have not to have been handled in any way by yourself so if you want to know what's in them you'll have to rely on the kindness of the people providing them. All of this is done whether or not the child is at a special needs school or intergrating into mainstream.

 

There doesn't seem to be an honest way around this. In the end the best result on a 457 visa is if you can pay for all the medical and educational costs and this will also depend on whether you have other children of school age that you also have to pay for.

Payment costs for state schooling is different from state to state and may also depend on your visa type.

 

 

John