HUMAGAI (Migration)

This matter concerned an application for a Subclass 602 Medical Treatment (Visitor) visa, reviewed by the Tribunal. The applicant sought to remain in Australia temporarily to obtain psychological counselling. The central dispute revolved around whether the applicant had provided sufficient information to satisfy the Tribunal that he met the criteria for the visa, specifically the requirement that he genuinely intended to stay temporarily for the stated purpose.

The Tribunal was required to determine if the applicant genuinely intended to stay temporarily in Australia for the purpose of receiving medical treatment, as mandated by clause 602.215 of the Migration Regulations 1994. This involved considering the applicant's compliance with previous visa conditions, his intention to comply with the conditions of the Subclass 602 visa, and any other relevant matters. The Tribunal also had to assess the information provided in the application form, including the duration of intended stay, the nature of the medical treatment, details of medical practitioners, and funding arrangements.

The Tribunal considered the applicant's initial stated intention to remain in Australia from August 2017 to March 2018 for psychological counselling, funded by his savings. It also reviewed a report from the treating psychologist, who indicated the applicant had been receiving monthly counselling since September 2017 for depression and anxiety, exacerbated by employment and visa status uncertainty. The psychologist recommended continued counselling and assistance with visa issues, including potential residency status. However, the Tribunal found that the applicant's continued treatment and the psychologist's report, which suggested the applicant's mental state was linked to his visa status and that he had complied with previous visa requirements, did not sufficiently demonstrate a genuine intention to stay temporarily for medical treatment. Instead, it suggested an underlying desire for permanent residency.

Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicant the Subclass 602 visa, finding that the applicant did not meet the necessary requirements for its grant.