Sabbar (Migration)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) considered the case of an applicant seeking a Subclass 602 Medical Treatment visa. The applicant, a 44-year-old Swedish citizen born in Iraq, had previously held several visitor visas and had a Temporary Work (subclass 457) visa application refused. The primary dispute before the Tribunal was whether the applicant had provided sufficient information to satisfy the criteria for the Medical Treatment visa and, specifically, whether she genuinely intended to remain in Australia only for the purpose of medical treatment.

The Tribunal was required to determine if the applicant met the requirements of the Subclass 602 visa, particularly focusing on two key criteria. Firstly, it needed to assess whether the applicant was medically unfit to depart Australia, as outlined in clause 602.212(6) of the Migration Regulations 1994. This subclause requires the applicant to be over 50 years of age, have applied for a permanent visa, appear to meet its criteria except for health, have been refused that visa, and be medically unfit to depart due to a permanent or deteriorating condition evidenced by a Commonwealth Medical Officer. Secondly, the Tribunal had to consider whether the applicant genuinely intended to stay temporarily in Australia for the stated medical purpose, as per clause 602.215, which involves assessing compliance with visa conditions and other relevant matters, unless the applicant is medically unfit to depart.

In its reasoning, the Tribunal found that while the applicant was in Australia, she had not met the age requirement of clause 602.212(6), as she was 44 years old and had not yet turned 50. Consequently, this specific criterion for being medically unfit to depart was not satisfied. As the genuineness of the intention to stay temporarily (clause 602.215) is not applicable if the applicant is medically unfit to depart under clause 602.212(6), and that condition was not met, the Tribunal proceeded to assess the overall eligibility. Based on the failure to meet the specific criteria for the visa, the Tribunal concluded that the applicant did not satisfy the requirements for the grant of the Medical Treatment visa.

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