1822132 (Migration)

This matter concerned an application for a Medical Treatment (Visitor) (Class UB) visa, Subclass 602. The applicant had a long history of visiting and residing in Australia since 1995, with her most recent arrival in October 2007. She had previously applied for and been refused a Medical Treatment visa in 2010, and a subsequent application in 2016 was also refused after her parents, whom she was caring for, had passed away. After further ministerial intervention was declined, the applicant applied in June 2018 for a Medical Treatment visa to receive counselling for depression and anxiety. The delegate refused this application, finding that the applicant had not provided sufficient evidence of an intention or incentive to depart Australia and therefore did not meet the requirements of clause 602.215, as she appeared to wish to maintain her residence in Australia. The Tribunal affirmed this decision.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicant met the requirements for the grant of a Medical Treatment visa, specifically concerning her genuine intention to stay temporarily for the purpose of receiving medical treatment and her arrangements for payment and departure. The Tribunal was required to consider the applicant's extensive migration and residence history in Australia, her stated need for ongoing mental health treatment, the circumstances of her parents' deaths, and her brother's terminal illness. The Tribunal also had to assess whether the applicant had provided sufficient evidence of concluded arrangements for her treatment and payment for both the treatment and her expenses in Australia, as well as evidence of her plans to depart Australia.

The Tribunal reasoned that the applicant had not provided sufficient evidence to satisfy the requirements of the Migration Regulations 1994 for a Medical Treatment visa. While the applicant presented evidence of ongoing mental health issues and a need for treatment, there was a lack of clarity regarding concluded arrangements for this treatment and, crucially, for the payment of all costs associated with her treatment and stay in Australia. The Tribunal noted that Medical Treatment visas are intended for temporary stays and observed that the applicant had previously sought to remain in Australia until May 2019. Despite acknowledging the applicant's difficult circumstances, including the loss of her parents and her own mental health struggles, the Tribunal found that it could not grant a visa unless the applicant met the prescribed legal requirements. The applicant's assertion that she intended to leave but could not due to her boat needing repairs was not considered a sufficient reason to overcome the lack of evidence regarding her departure plans or the financial arrangements for her treatment.

Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the delegate's decision not to grant the applicant a Medical Treatment (Visitor) (Class UB) visa, Subclass 602, as the applicant did not meet the requirements for the grant of the visa.