Mistry (Migration)

This matter concerned an application for a Subclass 602 Medical Treatment visa. The applicant, who had been in Australia unlawfully for over ten years, sought to remain in the country for medical treatment. The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) considered the applicant's claims and evidence presented during a video hearing, which was conducted with the assistance of an interpreter.

The primary legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the applicant genuinely intended to stay temporarily in Australia for the purpose for which the visa was granted, and whether the visit was for genuine medical or related purposes. This involved assessing compliance with visa conditions, the intention to comply with future conditions, and any other relevant matters, as stipulated by clauses 602.215 and 602.211 of the Migration Regulations 1994.

The Tribunal noted that departmental records indicated the applicant had arrived in Australia 15 years prior and had remained in the country unlawfully since her last bridging visa expired over a decade ago. The applicant had previously applied for a permanent visa, which was refused, and had unsuccessfully sought review of that decision. The applicant confirmed the accuracy of these records during the hearing. While the applicant had indicated in her application a need for treatment for helicobacter and major depression, and for psychological and psychiatric support, she stated during the hearing that her current medical issues were anxiety, a urinary tract infection, and "bacteria" causing black spots on her body. The Tribunal found that based on the evidence, 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.