Marke (Migration)

This matter concerned an application for review of a decision not to grant the applicant a Subclass 602 Medical Treatment (Visitor) (Class UB) visa. The applicant, a citizen of Estonia, had a history of overstaying his visas in Australia, having previously held Subclass 417 Working Holiday visas and been refused a Subclass 600 Visitor visa. The primary issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicant met the criteria for the Subclass 602 visa, specifically concerning his financial means and genuine temporary stay for medical treatment.

The Tribunal was required to determine two key legal issues. Firstly, whether the applicant was medically unfit to depart Australia as defined by cl. 602.216(6), which would exempt him from demonstrating adequate means of support. Secondly, if not medically unfit to depart, whether the applicant possessed adequate means, or access to adequate means, to support himself during his intended stay in Australia, as required by cl. 602.216.

The Tribunal found that the applicant, being 34 years of age, did not meet the criterion of having turned 50, which is a prerequisite for the exemption under cl. 602.216(6). Consequently, the applicant was required to satisfy cl. 602.216. While the applicant provided a letter from a cardiologist indicating an agreement to treat his heart condition at an estimated cost of $1,500, the letter did not specify the timing or duration of the treatment. The Tribunal concluded that this limited medical evidence, coupled with the applicant's history of lengthy stays and overstaying in Australia, did not sufficiently demonstrate that he had adequate means of support or that his stay was genuinely temporary for medical treatment. Accordingly, the Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the visa.