Rokotakala (Migration)

This matter concerned an application for review of a delegate's decision to refuse the applicant, a 17-year-old boy from Fiji, a Medical Treatment (Visitor) (Class UB) (Support Person) visa. The applicant sought to support his mother, who had applied for a Medical Treatment (Visitor) (Class UB) visa to receive treatment for incurable metastatic breast cancer in Australia. His mother's visa application was refused, and consequently, the applicant's application was also refused on the basis that he did not meet the criteria for a support person as his mother did not hold the relevant visa.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the applicant met the requirements of clause 602.212 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth), specifically subclause (4), which requires an applicant seeking to provide emotional and other support to a visa holder to demonstrate that the person they intend to support actually holds a subclass 602 visa. The court also implicitly considered whether there were compassionate or compelling circumstances that warranted a different outcome, given the applicant's mother's serious medical condition and inability to access or afford comparable treatment in Fiji.

The Tribunal affirmed the delegate's decision to refuse the applicant a visa. The reasoning was that the applicant did not satisfy clause 602.212(4) of the Regulations because his mother, the intended recipient of his support, had been refused a Medical Treatment (Subclass 602) visa. Therefore, the applicant could not be considered a support person for a subclass 602 visa holder.

Despite affirming the refusal, the Tribunal referred the matter to the Minister for consideration of his discretion under section 351 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth), acknowledging the serious medical circumstances of the applicant's mother.