Ramsamy (Migration)

[2023] AATA 1083

Ramsamy (Migration) [2023] AATA 1083 (13 April 2023)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

APPLICANT:  Ms Vedanaygee Ramsamy

REPRESENTATIVE:  Mr Felix Cararo (MARN: 1069354)

CASE NUMBER:  2206800

HOME AFFAIRS REFERENCE(S):          BCC2022/759987

MEMBER:Angela Cranston

DATE:13 April 2023

PLACE OF DECISION:  Sydney

DECISION:The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicant a Medical Treatment (Visitor) (Class UB) visa.

Statement made on 13 April 2023 at 11.38am

CATCHWORDS

MIGRATION – Medical Treatment (Visitor) (Class UB) visa – subclass 602 –support person for her husband – husband’s Medical Treatment visa was refused – decision under review affirmed

LEGISLATION

Migration Act 1958, s 65

Migration Regulations 1994, Schedule 2, cl 602.212

STATEMENT OF DECISION AND REASONS

APPLICATION FOR REVIEW

1. This is an application for review of a decision made by a delegate of the Minister for Home Affairs on 20 April 2022 to refuse to grant the applicant a Medical Treatment (Visitor) (Class UB) visa under s 65 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (the Act).

2. The applicant applied for the visa on 25 March 2022. At that time, Class UB contained one subclass, Subclass 602 (Medical Treatment). The criteria for the grant of this visa are set out in Part 602 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth) (the Regulations).

3.    The applicant applied for the visa the subject of this review as a support person for her husband. Her husband applied for a medical treatment visitor visa.

4.    The delegate refused to grant the applicant the visa because her husband whom she intended to support was refused and does not hold a medical treatment visa.

5.    The applicant appeared before the Tribunal on 10 March 2023 and again on 21 March 2023 to give evidence and present arguments. The Tribunal also received oral evidence from the applicant’s husband.

6.    The applicant was represented in relation to the review.

7.    For the following reasons, the Tribunal has decided that the decision under review should be affirmed.

CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE

8.    At the time the applicant applied for the visa Class UB contained one subclass, Subclass 602 (Medical Treatment). The Subclass 602 Medical Treatment visa is for persons seeking to visit or remain in Australia temporarily for medical treatment or related purposes.

9. The criteria for the grant of this visa are set out in Part 602 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations.

1. The key issue in this case is whether the applicant meets cl 602.212 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth) (the Regulations). This clause requires that an applicant meet one of subclauses (2) to (8). Relevantly to the applicant, as a support person he was required to meet subclause 602.212(4) which is set out below:

Support person

(4) All of the following requirements are met:

(a) the applicant seeks to give emotional and other support to an applicant in relation to whom:

(i) the requirements described in subclause (2) or (3) are met; or

(ii) the requirements described in subclause 675.212(2) or (3) are met; or

(iii) the requirements described in subclause 685.212(2) or (3) are met;

(b) the person to whom the applicant is to provide support holds:

(i) a Subclass 602 visa on the basis that the requirements described in subclause (2) or (3) have been met; or

(ii) a Subclass 675 (Medical Treatment (Short Stay)) visa on the basis that the requirements described in subclause 675.212(2) or (3) have been met; or

(iii) a Subclass 685 (Medical Treatment (Long Stay)) visa on the basis that the requirements described in subclause 685.212(2) or (3) have been met;

(c) the applicant satisfies public interest criterion 4005.

FINDINGS

Does the applicant meet Subclause 602.212(4)?

1. Subclause 602.212(4) requires that the applicant seek to give emotional and other support to an applicant who holds a Subclass 602 visa. In this case, the applicant seeks to give emotional and other support to her husband, who has applied for a Subclause 602 visa.

2. In a separate decision, the Tribunal has affirmed the decision of the Department to refuse her husband a Medical Treatment (Subclause 602) visa, as the Tribunal was not satisfied that he genuinely intends to stay temporarily in Australia for the purposes of medical treatment, as required by cl 602.215 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations.

3. The Tribunal is not satisfied therefore that the applicant meets subclause 602.212(4) as her husband does not hold a Subclass 602 visa.

4. No other subclause in cl 602.212 is relevant.

5. Given the above findings, cl 602.212 is not met.

DECISION

1. The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicant a Medical Treatment (Visitor) (Class UB) visa.

Angela Cranston
Member