2219181 (Migration)

This matter concerned an application for review of a decision by the Migration Review Tribunal to affirm the refusal of a Medical Treatment (Visitor) (Class UB) visa, subclass 602. The applicant initially sought the visa as a support person for her partner, who was applying for a medical treatment visa. However, the applicant's partner's visa was not granted, and the applicant and her partner were no longer in a relationship. The applicant subsequently pursued her own claim for a visa to receive medical treatment, specifically a bilateral breast mastopexy, and to continue providing support to her former partner.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicant satisfied the criteria for a Medical Treatment (Visitor) visa, particularly under subclause 601.212 of the Migration Regulations. This involved determining if the applicant met any of the requirements outlined in subclauses (2) to (8) of that regulation, which included seeking medical treatment herself, donating an organ, being a citizen of Papua New Guinea, demonstrating inability to depart Australia, showing financial hardship, or having compelling personal reasons for the visa grant. The Tribunal also had to consider the applicant's continued claim to support her former partner, despite their changed relationship status.

The Tribunal reasoned that the applicant had not provided sufficient updated information to demonstrate that she met the requirements for the visa. While the applicant had undergone the surgery and provided some medical documentation, the Tribunal found that this information, combined with the original application basis and the changed circumstances of her relationship with her former partner, did not establish that she satisfied any of the relevant subclauses of regulation 601.212. The Tribunal noted that the applicant had not provided evidence that she herself was seeking medical treatment in Australia under the criteria, nor had she demonstrated compelling personal reasons for the visa grant. The Tribunal also observed that the applicant had consented to a decision without a hearing, indicating an acceptance that there was no basis to reasonably find the requirements were satisfied.

The Tribunal affirmed the decision under review, concluding that the applicant did not meet the criteria for the grant of a Medical Treatment (Visitor) visa.