Prajapati (Migration)

This matter concerned the review of decisions to refuse Medical Treatment (Visitor) (Class UB) visas, Subclass 602, to the first and second named applicants. The applicants had applied for these visas as support persons for Mr Prajapati, who had also applied for a Medical Treatment visa. The Tribunal was required to determine whether the applicants met the criteria for a Subclass 602 visa as support persons.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the first and second named applicants satisfied the requirements of subclause 602.212(4) of the Migration Regulations 1994, which pertains to applicants seeking to provide support to a person requiring medical treatment in Australia. This subclause requires that the person to whom support is to be provided holds a relevant Medical Treatment visa. The Tribunal also considered whether the applicants themselves sought medical treatment in Australia, as per subclause 602.212(2), or sought to donate an organ, as per subclause 602.212(3).

The Tribunal reasoned that for the applicants to be granted a visa as support persons under subclause 602.212(4), Mr Prajapati, the person requiring support, must have held a Subclass 602 Medical Treatment visa at the time of the decision. As Mr Prajapati's visa had been refused, this condition was not met. Furthermore, the Tribunal found that the first and second named applicants had not provided evidence that they themselves were seeking medical treatment or intended to donate an organ. The first named applicant's evidence indicated she was the household breadwinner, and her daughter attended kindergarten, which did not align with seeking medical treatment in Australia.

Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the decisions under review, finding that the first and second named applicants did not meet the requirements for the grant of the visa.