1801566 (Migration)

The applicant, a citizen of Malaysia, sought judicial review of the decision of the Immigration Assessment Authority (IAA) to affirm the refusal of her application for a Subclass 602 (Medical Treatment) visa. The applicant had previously entered Australia on a tourist visa and had overstayed, subsequently applying for the Subclass 602 visa while remaining in Australia. The primary dispute concerned whether the applicant genuinely intended to stay in Australia temporarily for the purpose of receiving medical treatment, or if her true intention was to remain permanently and continue working in Australia, as suggested by her adverse migration history and lack of a confirmed medical treatment plan.

The court was required to determine whether the delegate's decision to refuse the visa, and the IAA's subsequent affirmation of that decision, were affected by jurisdictional error. Specifically, the court had to consider whether the applicant had satisfied the requirements of the *Migration Regulations 1994* (Cth) for a Subclass 602 visa, particularly concerning the genuine temporary entrant requirement and the genuine intention to receive medical treatment. The applicant also raised a claim of discrimination against Chinese people in Malaysia as a basis for her desire to remain in Australia.

In her reasoning, Ms Holub found that the delegate and the IAA had not erred in their assessment of the applicant's intentions. The adverse migration history, including the previous overstay, was a significant factor. Furthermore, the lack of a confirmed arrangement for medical treatment in Australia, coupled with the applicant's stated intention to continue working, weighed against a finding that she genuinely intended to stay temporarily for medical purposes. The claim of discrimination, while noted, was not considered sufficient to override the other adverse factors and establish a genuine intention to seek medical treatment.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.