Ha (Migration)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal considered the case of an applicant seeking review of a decision to refuse a Medical Treatment (Visitor) (Class UB) visa, Subclass 602. The applicant claimed to require ongoing psychiatric treatment in Australia for severe Major Depressive Disorder, supported by a letter from a consultant psychiatrist. The primary dispute revolved around whether the applicant genuinely intended to remain in Australia temporarily for the purpose of receiving this medical treatment.

The Tribunal was required to determine if the applicant met the criteria for a Subclass 602 visa, specifically clause 602.212(2), which pertains to obtaining medical treatment in Australia. This involved assessing whether the applicant had concluded arrangements for treatment, whether payment for costs would be a charge on Australian authorities, and crucially, whether the applicant intended to remain in Australia temporarily. The Tribunal also considered a request for referral to the Minister under section 351 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth), based on the applicant being the sole carer of two young children, one of whom is an Australian citizen.

In its reasoning, the Tribunal found that the applicant did not satisfy the requirements of clause 602.212(2). This conclusion was based on the applicant's extensive migration history, including previous visa refusals and a prolonged period of onshore presence since 2009, which indicated an intention to remain in Australia on a permanent basis rather than temporarily for medical treatment. Regarding the request for ministerial intervention, the Tribunal determined that the case was inappropriate for referral. This was because the applicant had made previous requests for ministerial intervention, and the Ministerial guidelines indicate that repeat requests are not to be considered.

Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the delegate's decision to refuse the visa. The Tribunal was not satisfied that the applicant met the requirements for a Medical Treatment (Visitor) visa, and it declined to refer the matter to the Minister for discretionary intervention.