2015282 (Migration)

This matter concerned an application for review of a decision by a delegate of the Minister for Home Affairs to refuse the applicant, a citizen of Colombia, a Medical Treatment (Visitor) (Class UB) visa (Subclass 602). The applicant had a history of unsuccessful visa applications and reviews since arriving in Australia in 2012, including a refused permanent visa application and a subsequent series of bridging visas. The delegate refused the medical treatment visa on 24 September 2020, finding the applicant did not genuinely intend to stay temporarily in Australia for the purpose of the visa. The applicant sought review of this decision by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicant satisfied clause 602.215 of the Migration Regulations 1994, which requires that an applicant genuinely intends to stay temporarily in Australia for the purpose for which the visa is granted. This clause was relevant as the applicant had not turned 50 years of age, which would have otherwise exempted him from this requirement under clause 602.212(6). A secondary issue, which became unnecessary to consider, was whether the applicant met clause 602.217(1) regarding debts to the Commonwealth.

The Tribunal noted that the applicant had not responded to invitations to provide comments or attend a hearing, despite being informed that his migration history, including previous unsuccessful applications and an outstanding debt to the Commonwealth, would be considered as reasons for affirming the decision. The Tribunal found that the applicant's extensive migration history, which indicated a desire to remain in Australia permanently, and his lack of engagement with the Tribunal's processes meant he had not satisfied the requirement under clause 602.215. Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the delegate's decision to refuse the visa.