2305817 (Migration)

This matter concerned an application for review of a delegate's decision to refuse a Medical Treatment (Visitor) (Class UB) visa. The applicant, a citizen of China, had a significant history of unlawful presence in Australia spanning over two decades. The delegate's refusal was based on a lack of satisfaction that the applicant genuinely intended to remain in Australia temporarily for the purpose of medical treatment. The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (the Tribunal) was tasked with reviewing this decision.

The Tribunal was required to determine whether the applicant met the criteria for the Subclass 602 (Medical Treatment) visa, specifically as set out in clauses 602.211 and 602.215 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994. Clause 602.211 mandates that the applicant seeks to visit or remain in Australia temporarily for medical treatment or related purposes, while clause 602.215 requires the applicant to genuinely intend to stay temporarily for the granted purpose. The Tribunal also considered the applicant's extensive migration history, including prolonged periods of unlawful status, as relevant to the assessment of his genuine temporary entrant status.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to provide any evidence to satisfy the visa criteria. Despite multiple invitations to submit documentation and arguments, including specific requests for details regarding medical treatment arrangements, costs, compliance with visa conditions, and incentives to return to China, the applicant provided nothing. He also elected not to participate in a hearing, consenting to a decision on the papers. Given the lack of evidence demonstrating a genuine intention to seek medical treatment temporarily and the applicant's substantial history of unlawful immigration, the Tribunal concluded that the applicant did not meet the requirements for the visa.

Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the delegate's decision to refuse the grant of the Medical Treatment (Visitor) (Class UB) visa.