Rahman (Migration)

This matter concerned an application for a Medical Treatment (Visitor) (Class UB) visa, subclass 602, by an applicant seeking to act as a support person. The applicant's wife, who was the person requiring support, was an Australian citizen. The decision under review was made by the Migration Review Tribunal, presided over by Member Tania Flood.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicant met the requirements for a subclass 602 visa as a support person, as stipulated by clause 602.212 of the Migration Regulations 1994. Specifically, the Tribunal had to determine if the applicant satisfied the criteria outlined in subclause 602.212(4), which pertains to support persons.

The Tribunal's reasoning focused on the specific wording of clause 602.212(4)(b). This subclause requires that the person to whom the applicant is to provide support must hold a specific type of visa, such as a subclass 602, 675, or 685 visa, granted on the basis of meeting certain medical treatment criteria. As the applicant's wife was an Australian citizen and not a holder of any of these specified visa subclasses, the Tribunal concluded that the applicant could not meet the requirements of clause 602.212(4). No other subcriteria under clause 602.212 were found to be relevant.

Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicant the Medical Treatment (Visitor) (Class UB) visa, subclass 602, on the basis that the applicant did not meet the prescribed visa requirements.