Ramsamy (Migration)

This matter concerned an appeal by the applicant, Ms Ramsamy, against a decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) which affirmed the refusal of her husband's Medical Treatment (Visitor) (Class UB) visa, subclass 602. Ms Ramsamy sought to be a support person for her husband, who had applied for a Medical Treatment visa to receive medical treatment in Australia.

The primary legal issue before the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia was whether the AAT had erred in law in its assessment of the applicant's eligibility for the visa, specifically concerning the requirement that she be a genuine support person for her husband's medical treatment. The court was required to consider whether the Tribunal had properly applied the relevant provisions of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth) and the *Migration Regulations 1994* (Cth) in its determination.

Her Honour Judge Cranston found that the AAT had not erred in law. The Tribunal had correctly considered the evidence before it regarding the applicant's role and the nature of her husband's proposed medical treatment. The AAT's conclusion that the applicant did not meet the criteria for a support person, as defined by the regulations, was a finding of fact based on the evidence presented and was therefore not amenable to judicial review. The appeal was dismissed.