Maung (Migration)

The applicant, who arrived in Australia in November 2013 and currently holds a bridging visa, sought judicial review of a decision by the Migration Review Tribunal affirming the refusal of a Medical Treatment visa. The applicant had previously applied for a protection visa, which was refused, and subsequent applications and reviews did not alter this outcome. After a waiver of condition 8503 on his bridging visa, the applicant applied for a Medical Treatment visa, citing multiple complex health conditions requiring ongoing treatment.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the applicant met the criteria set out in clauses 602.212(2) and 602.215 of the Migration Regulations 1994. Clause 602.212(2) requires that an applicant seeks medical treatment in Australia, that arrangements have been concluded to carry out the treatment, that the applicant is not a threat to public health, and crucially, that arrangements have been concluded for the payment of all costs associated with the treatment and stay, and that these costs will not be a charge on any Australian government authority. Clause 602.215 concerns the applicant's genuine intention to stay temporarily in Australia.

The Tribunal found that the applicant did not satisfy clause 602.212(2) because the medical issues presented were ongoing and did not constitute specified medical treatment of a temporary nature for which arrangements had been concluded. Furthermore, there was insufficient evidence to satisfy the Tribunal that arrangements for the payment of all costs had been concluded, or that these costs would not be a charge on government resources. The Tribunal also noted a lack of evidence regarding specific proposed treatments and concluded that the applicant failed to meet multiple sub-criteria of clause 602.212(2), and therefore failed to meet the clause as a whole.

Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicant a Medical Treatment (Visitor) (Class UB) visa. The Deputy President noted that this decision did not preclude the applicant from making further submissions to the Department regarding intervention or from providing additional information, such as potential treatment options in Myanmar.