Fathima (Migration)

This matter concerned an application for a Medical Treatment (Visitor) (Class UB) visa, subclass 602, made by a citizen of India. The applicant had resided in Australia since 2010, primarily on student visas, and had experienced periods of being unlawful. The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (the Tribunal) affirmed the decision to refuse the visa, finding that the applicant had not provided sufficient information to satisfy the criteria for the visa, particularly regarding her genuine intention to stay temporarily in Australia for the purpose of medical treatment. The applicant had returned to India in January 2020, stating that medical treatment in Australia was too expensive and that she had since recovered.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicant met the requirements for a subclass 602 visa, specifically clause 602.215 of the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth), which mandates that an applicant genuinely intends to stay temporarily in Australia for the purpose for which the visa is granted. The Tribunal was required to consider whether the applicant had complied substantially with the conditions of her previous visas and her intention to comply with the conditions of the subclass 602 visa, as well as any other relevant matters. The Tribunal also considered whether the applicant was medically unfit to depart Australia, which would exempt her from the temporary stay requirement.

The Tribunal's reasoning focused on the applicant's stated intention to remain in Australia for 24 months for medical treatment, which was contradicted by her subsequent return to India and her assertion that she no longer required medical treatment. The Tribunal noted that the applicant had been invited to respond to information regarding her immigration history, which suggested she was not seeking to stay in Australia on a temporary basis. Given that the applicant was in India at the time of the hearing and had indicated she no longer required medical treatment, the Tribunal concluded that she did not meet the criterion of genuinely intending to stay temporarily in Australia for the purpose of medical treatment.

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