Lovepreet Singh (Migration)

This matter concerned an application for a Medical Treatment (Visitor) (Class UB) visa, subclass 602, by Lovepreet Singh. The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (the Tribunal) affirmed the delegate's decision not to grant the visa. The applicant had been invited to provide further information under section 359(2) of the Migration Act 1958 but failed to do so within the prescribed period, despite being represented by a migration agent.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicant had met the requirements for the grant of the Medical Treatment (Visitor) visa, particularly in light of his failure to provide requested information. This included determining whether the applicant had demonstrated a genuine intention to stay temporarily in Australia for the purpose for which the visa was granted, and whether he had satisfied the evidentiary requirements concerning his medical condition and the necessity of treatment in Australia. The Tribunal also considered the applicant's entitlement to a hearing, given his non-compliance with the request for information.

The Tribunal reasoned that it was not required to make the applicant's case for him and that the onus was on the applicant to satisfy the Tribunal that the requirements of the Act and Regulations had been met. It noted that the applicant had previously been put on notice that insufficient evidence had been provided regarding the severity of his illness, the need for ongoing consultation in Australia, and the unavailability of the treatment outside Australia. Furthermore, the Tribunal found that the applicant had not provided sufficient documentation to demonstrate his intention to depart Australia, referencing his previous unsuccessful applications for permanent visas. The Tribunal also confirmed that, pursuant to sections 359(2), 359C(1), 360(3), and 363A of the Act, and consistent with case law such as *Hasran v MIAC* [2010] FCAFC 40 and *Singh v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection* (2017) FCAFC 67, it was entitled to make a decision without further action when an applicant failed to provide requested information, and that the issuance of a hearing invitation did not confer an accrued right to a hearing.

Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicant a Medical Treatment (Visitor) (Class UB) visa, subclass 602, as the applicant did not meet the requirements for the grant of the visa.