2113357 (Migration)

This matter concerned an application for a Medical Treatment (Visitor) (Class UB) visa, Subclass 602, made by the applicant. The Tribunal was required to determine whether the applicant met the criteria for the grant of this visa, specifically focusing on whether she was a genuine temporary entrant and whether the arrangements for her proposed medical treatment in Australia were concluded.

The primary legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the applicant met the requirements of Clause 602.211, which mandates that the visa applicant seeks to visit or remain in Australia temporarily for medical treatment or related purposes, and Clause 602.212, which outlines specific criteria for medical treatment visas. Crucially, the Tribunal also had to consider Clause 602.215, which requires the applicant to genuinely intend to stay temporarily in Australia for the purpose for which the visa is granted, taking into account their compliance with previous visa conditions, their intention to comply with the conditions of the Subclass 602 visa, and any other relevant matters.

The Tribunal affirmed the delegate's decision to refuse the visa. It found that while the applicant's stated purpose of seeking medical treatment for ocular hypertension and glaucoma was accepted as meeting the subjective requirements of Clause 602.211, the applicant failed to satisfy other essential criteria. Specifically, the Tribunal was not satisfied that arrangements for the applicant's treatment had been concluded, as there was no evidence of attendance at specialist appointments or a confirmed diagnosis. Furthermore, the Tribunal noted a lack of information regarding the costs and expenses associated with the treatment and stay, and whether these would be a charge on Australian public authorities. The Tribunal also considered the applicant's extensive migration history, including a long period of residence in Australia since 2009, previous unsuccessful applications for permanent visas, and the withdrawal of a judicial review application shortly before lodging the current application. Coupled with the presence of close family members in Australia, these factors led the Tribunal to conclude that the applicant had not demonstrated a genuine intention to be a temporary entrant or an incentive to depart Australia.

Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the decision under review, finding that the applicant had not satisfied the requirements of the Migration Regulations 1994 for the grant of a Subclass 602 visa.