Adhikari (Migration)

The applicant, Mr. Adhikari, sought review of a decision to refuse him a Subclass 602 Medical Treatment (Visitor) visa. The core of the dispute centred on whether the applicant genuinely intended to stay temporarily in Australia for the purpose of medical treatment, as required by the visa criteria. The applicant had a lengthy and complex migration history, having arrived in Australia in 2004 and subsequently held a series of bridging visas following numerous unsuccessful visa applications and appeals. He claimed to be suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder and mental illness as a result of this history.

The legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicant met the criteria for the Subclass 602 visa, specifically clause 602.215(1) which requires the applicant to genuinely intend to stay temporarily in Australia for the purpose for which the visa is granted. This assessment involved considering whether the applicant had complied with the conditions of his previous visas, whether he intended to comply with the conditions of the Subclass 602 visa, and any other relevant matters. The Tribunal also had regard to the applicant's extensive and adverse migration history, which included multiple refusals and appeals that had been unsuccessful up to the High Court.

The Tribunal reasoned that the applicant's prolonged stay in Australia since 2004, coupled with his continuous reliance on bridging visas due to repeated visa refusals and unsuccessful appeals, strongly indicated a non-genuine intention to remain in Australia temporarily. While the applicant claimed to be suffering from mental illness and receiving medical treatment, the Tribunal found the medical evidence to be equivocal and vague. Furthermore, the applicant's significant visa history, including numerous applications and appeals spanning many years, demonstrated a persistent motivation to remain in Australia indefinitely rather than for a temporary period for medical treatment. The Tribunal concluded that these factors, taken together, meant the applicant had not satisfied the genuine temporary stay requirement.

Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicant the Subclass 602 Medical Treatment (Visitor) visa, finding that he did not meet the necessary criteria.