ARORA (Migration)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal considered the case of an applicant seeking a Subclass 602 Medical Treatment visa. The applicant, a 21-year-old national of India, applied for the visa while in Australia. The core of the dispute revolved around whether the applicant met the requirements of clause 602.213 of the Migration Regulations, which applies to applicants in Australia at the time of application.

The Tribunal was required to determine if the applicant met the specific criteria for a Subclass 602 visa, particularly clause 602.213. This involved assessing whether the applicant held a substantive temporary visa at the time of application, or if not, whether she met alternative requirements. These alternative requirements included not being medically unfit to depart Australia, having held a previous substantive temporary visa that was not a Subclass 426 or 403, and satisfying Schedule 3 criteria 3001, 3003, 3004, and 3005.

The Tribunal found that the applicant did not hold a substantive temporary visa when she applied, as her last visa, a Subclass 457, had been cancelled. It also determined that she did not meet the criteria for being medically unfit to depart Australia, as she had not turned 50. Crucially, the Tribunal examined Schedule 3 criterion 3001, which requires an application to be lodged within 28 days of the "relevant day." Given that the applicant's last substantive visa was cancelled and the cancellation decision was not set aside, the "relevant day" was the last day she held that substantive visa. As the applicant had not provided details of her required medical treatment and had not met the threshold requirements of clause 602.213, the Tribunal concluded that she did not satisfy the criteria for the visa grant.

Consequently, the Administrative Appeals Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicant a Medical Treatment (Visitor) (Class UB) visa.