Kim (Migration)

This matter concerned an application for a Subclass 602 (Medical Treatment) visa, where the applicant sought to remain in Australia temporarily for medical treatment. The dispute before the Tribunal was whether the applicant possessed adequate means, or access to adequate means, to support himself during his intended period of stay in Australia. The decision was made by Rachel Da Costa, a Member of the Tribunal.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was to determine whether the applicant satisfied the requirements of clause 602.216 of the Migration Regulations 1994, which mandates that an applicant must have adequate means, or access to adequate means, to support themselves during their intended stay in Australia. This requirement is subject to an exception outlined in clause 602.212(6), which applies if the applicant is medically unfit to depart Australia due to a permanent or deteriorating disease or condition, and has met certain other criteria related to permanent visa applications.

The Tribunal found that the applicant, born in July 1987, was 35 years old and in Australia, thus not meeting the age or permanent visa application criteria for the exception under clause 602.212(6). Consequently, the Tribunal determined that clause 602.216 applied. While the applicant stated in his visa application form that his stay would be self-funded and he had access to personal funds for medical treatment from April 2021 to April 2022 for surgical extraction of wisdom teeth, he failed to provide any further documentation to substantiate the costs of this treatment or demonstrate adequate means of support. Without this evidence, the Tribunal concluded that the applicant had not met the requirement of having adequate means to support himself during his intended stay.

Accordingly, the Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicant a Medical Treatment (Visitor) (Class UB) visa, as he did not meet the necessary visa criteria.