Kurucz (Migration)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) considered an application for review of a decision to refuse a Medical Treatment (Visitor) (Class UB) visa, subclass 602. The applicant sought to remain in Australia for medical treatment, but the delegate of the Minister was not satisfied that the applicant genuinely intended to stay in Australia temporarily for the purpose for which the visa was granted.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicant satisfied clause 602.215 in Schedule 2 of the Migration Regulations 1994, which requires an applicant for this visa subclass to genuinely intend to stay in Australia temporarily. The Tribunal was required to make a fresh decision based on the information available to it, including the applicant's extensive migration history in Australia since 2007.

The Tribunal noted the applicant's continuous presence in Australia since October 2007, during which time they had been granted multiple student visas and a previous Medical Treatment (Visitor) visa. The Tribunal also took into account the refusal of a subsequent student visa application, the unsuccessful review of that refusal by the AAT, and the Federal Court's decision in favour of the Minister on judicial review. Furthermore, the applicant's application for a second Medical Treatment (Visitor) visa had also been refused, and this decision was unsuccessfully reviewed at the AAT. The Tribunal found that, given this history, the applicant did not meet the requirements for the grant of the visa.

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