You might find the above link useful. Austlii is a mbuttive database. It includes descriptions of cases in the Federal Court, the Full Court and the Migration Review Tribunal. Some have been cases where the applicant has been refused a visa on medical grounds but has exercised their right of appeal. In his various posts, George Lombard frequently provides the link to Austlii, which is how I discovered it myself.
I know a little about Contributory Parent visas because my mother is in the process of applying for one, and we are not using an Agent. With Mum, there was a doubt about whether she could meet the medical criteria. She broke her back a few years ago. As a result, she now needs a zimmer-frame in order to walk, and she needs a wheelchair if she goes further afield. So we weren't sure about how she would fare on the meds.
The POPC were incredibly helpful when I asked them for advice about this. They said that there was no reason why we couldn't consult a Panel Doctor in advance of making a final decision about whether or not to apply for a CP visa for Mum. We decided that this was worth doing, though not everyone would agree. I think it is reasonable to suppose that a Panel Doctor will have a reasonable idea of one's likely chances, even though the final decision is not up to him. If he is pessimistic, this route gives one a chance to decide whether or not to risk £700 or so per person on the 1st VAC. So this is an option that you could consider if you wish.
With Parents (including CPs) there is a right of appeal to the Migration Review Tribunal if the application is turned down by DIMA. There have been MRT cases where the applicant has been refused on medical grounds, but the Review Medical Officer has taken a different view of the medical evidence and so the application has eventually succeeded. It is not a common occurrence, but I was surprised by how many cases I found where this had happened. I expected hardly any, but the incidence is higher than that.
Also with Parents (including CPs) the relevant health-provisions are set out in Public Interest Criterion 4005. Therefore when searching Austlii, it is useful to tell it name of condition + 4005, to ensure that the relevant medical cases come up. For a broader search, you could tell it Parent + 4005 or something like that.
Any April 06 Visa applicants Sender: john_w
Just thought I'd post Febs application updates for all to compare when CO's have been buttigned and visas granted.. Re: New Feb 06 Visa Applications ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------- 1...
Applicants for send migrant categories (temp or permanent) need to examine the criteria for the visa they are interested in closely. Firstly, is CR 4005 the relevant one for the particular visa being considered? (I think it probably is, but I am not 100% sure, so I urge caution on this.) Also, I do know that some of the send categories allow appeals to the MRT but others definitely do not. Where an appeal to the MRT is not possible, the only way to seek a Review is in Court, and the Court's Rules differ from the Rules in the MRT. I cannot be more specific, because my own knowledge of Australian visas is confined solely to Parents & CPs, in the context of Mum alone.
I do not believe that Austlii can provide definitive answers. However, I found it useful in that it shows the thinking which is applied to the cases where the meds prove problematic. To that extent, I think it provides useful insight, and it enables one to identify specific questions which need to be asked in the particular case.
So although this information is of very limited use, I hope it provides a little which is of use.