Mya (Migration)

This matter concerned an application for a Medical Treatment (Visitor) (Class UB) visa by an applicant who had arrived in Australia on a sponsored visitor visa and subsequently held a bridging visa. The applicant's previous application for a protection visa had been refused, and she had also applied for and been granted a waiver of condition 8503 on her bridging visa, which otherwise prevented her from obtaining a substantive visa while in Australia. The applicant sought the Medical Treatment visa to undergo ongoing weight management consultations and reviews, with a nominated treatment period of three years.

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, among other things, that arrangements have been concluded to carry out the medical treatment and that arrangements have been made for the payment of all costs associated with the treatment and the applicant's stay in Australia, which will not be a charge on the Commonwealth. Clause 602.215 requires that the applicant genuinely intends to stay temporarily in Australia for the purpose for which the visa is granted.

The court found that the applicant did not satisfy clause 602.212(2) because, while surgery for an abdominoplasty and bilateral arm lift had been completed in June 2018, there was no evidence of any further medical treatment sought or proposed in relation to her stated ongoing medical condition of "ongoing weight management," nor any evidence of concluded arrangements for such treatment. Consequently, the court was not satisfied that the applicant met paragraphs 602.212(2)(a) or (b), nor paragraphs (e) and (f) concerning costs. As all criteria in subclause (2) must be met, the applicant failed to satisfy clause 602.212. Although not strictly necessary given the failure to meet clause 602.212, the court also considered clause 602.215 for completeness, noting that the delegate had refused the application on this basis.

The Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicant a Medical Treatment (Visitor) (Class UB) visa. The Deputy President stated that they did not propose to refer the matter to the Minister for intervention under s.351 of the Act, but noted that this did not preclude the applicant from making further submissions. The Tribunal also acknowledged that additional information, such as the availability of treatment in Myanmar, had not been provided.