Hong (Migration)

This matter concerned an application for review of a decision by the Migration Review Tribunal (the Tribunal) to affirm the refusal of Medical Treatment (Visitor) (Class UB) visas (subclass 602) to Mr Cho and Mrs Hong. The applicants, citizens of the Republic of South Korea, had been in Australia for over 32 years, having arrived in August 1990. They had a history of multiple visa refusals and had pursued various avenues of review.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the Tribunal had erred in affirming the delegate's decision to refuse the applicants' Medical Treatment (Visitor) visas. Specifically, the court was required to consider whether the Tribunal had properly assessed whether the applicants had a genuine intention to stay in Australia temporarily for the purpose of receiving medical treatment, given their extensive and adverse migration history and their long-term continuous presence in Australia without making arrangements to depart.

The court affirmed the Tribunal's decision, finding that the Tribunal had not erred in its assessment. The Tribunal had taken into account the applicants' prolonged unlawful status in Australia, their multiple visa refusals, and their failure to demonstrate a genuine intention to depart Australia at the end of their proposed period of stay for medical treatment. While the applicants claimed to require treatment for various conditions, including cardiac issues and knee surgery, and stated they would be supported by their son and grandchildren residing in Australia, the Tribunal found these claims insufficient to overcome the significant adverse factors in their migration history. The Tribunal noted that the applicants had previously applied for Medical Treatment visas and had not departed. Furthermore, the applicants' stated intention to remain in Australia for medical treatment for a period of two years, coupled with their lack of assets in South Korea and their family's financial struggles there, suggested a desire for permanent settlement rather than temporary medical treatment. The Tribunal concluded that the applicants had not satisfied the criteria for a Medical Treatment (Visitor) visa, as it was not satisfied they intended to stay temporarily in Australia for the purpose of receiving medical treatment.