CAHYADI (Migration)

This matter concerned an application for a Medical Treatment (Visitor) (Class UB) visa, subclass 602, made by an applicant who sought to accompany his wife while she underwent medical treatment in Australia. The applicant's own application was contingent on his wife being granted a Medical Treatment visa, as he was applying as a support person. The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) was required to determine whether the applicant met the criteria for the visa.

The central legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicant satisfied the requirements of clause 602.212(4) of the Migration Regulations 1994. This clause pertains to applicants seeking a Medical Treatment visa as a support person. Specifically, the Tribunal had to consider whether the person the applicant intended to support, his wife, held a valid Subclass 602 visa, as stipulated by the regulation.

The Tribunal reasoned that the applicant's eligibility as a support person under clause 602.212(4) was directly dependent on his wife holding a Subclass 602 visa. It was established that the applicant's wife had been refused a Medical Treatment visa by the primary delegate, and this decision was subsequently affirmed by the Tribunal on review. Consequently, at the time of the applicant's own visa determination, his wife did not hold, nor was she eligible to hold, a Subclass 602 visa. As this prerequisite was not met, the Tribunal concluded that the applicant could not satisfy the criteria for a Medical Treatment visa as a support person.

Accordingly, the Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicant a Medical Treatment (Visitor) (Class UB) visa, subclass 602, on the basis that he failed to meet the requirements of clause 602.212(4) of the Migration Regulations.