Abu Zaid (Migration)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal considered the case of an applicant seeking a Subclass 602 Medical Treatment visa. The applicant's stated purpose for seeking the visa was to obtain medical treatment for neck and shoulder pain. The Tribunal was required to determine whether the applicant met the criteria for this visa subclass, specifically concerning the purpose of the stay and the arrangements for medical treatment.

The primary legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the applicant's proposed visit to Australia was for a purpose permitted by clause 602.212 of the Migration Regulations, and if so, whether the applicant met the requirements of clause 602.215, which pertains to the genuine temporary stay criterion. Clause 602.212 outlines various bases for requiring a stay in Australia, with clause 602.212(2) specifically addressing the seeking of medical treatment. This subclause requires, among other things, that arrangements for treatment have been concluded, costs are covered, and the applicant does not pose a public health risk.

The Tribunal reasoned that, following the binding decision in *El Mir v MICMSMA*, it was necessary to identify a relevant purpose under clause 602.212 and then assess the genuine temporary stay criterion. The applicant had initially sought treatment for neck and shoulder pain, providing a Form 1507. However, the period for which the visa was originally sought had passed, and no further evidence regarding ongoing or new medical treatment had been provided. Despite an invitation from the Tribunal on 15 September 2021, requesting information about the medical treatment or any other basis for the stay under clause 602.212, the applicant failed to respond by the deadline of 21 October 2021. Consequently, the Tribunal was not satisfied that the applicant had demonstrated that arrangements for medical treatment had been concluded or that the costs associated with such treatment and stay would be met.

Based on these findings, the Tribunal concluded that the applicant did not meet the requirements for the grant of the visa. The decision under review, which was not to grant the visa, was therefore affirmed.