Su (Migration)

This matter concerned an application for review of a decision not to grant the applicant a Medical Treatment (Visitor) (Class UB) visa, Subclass 602. The applicant had a long migration history in Australia, having arrived in 2005 and spent a significant period onshore with only brief departures. The application for the Medical Treatment visa was made following multiple unsuccessful attempts to obtain a permanent visa, including a declined request for Ministerial intervention. The applicant's migration agent conceded that the applicant did not meet the criteria for the visa, particularly Schedule 3 requirements, as the application was lodged more than 28 days after the expiry of their last substantive visa.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicant met the requirements for the grant of a Subclass 602 visa, specifically in light of the concession made by their representative regarding Schedule 3 criteria and the applicant's stated reason for seeking medical treatment. The Tribunal also had to consider the impact of amendments to the Migration Regulations 1994, which had altered the applicability of certain clauses. The applicant's stated medical condition was described as mild, requiring no long-term medication or active treatment.

The Tribunal affirmed the delegate's decision, finding that the applicant did not meet the requirements for the visa. The Tribunal noted that the applicant's migration agent's concession regarding Schedule 3 criteria was based on an outdated understanding of the regulations, as amendments effective from 1 July 2017 had changed the relevant provisions. The applicant's own evidence confirmed their extensive migration history and previous unsuccessful visa applications. The Tribunal concluded that, based on the evidence presented, including the mild nature of the medical condition and the concession regarding visa criteria, the applicant had not satisfied the requirements for the grant of a Medical Treatment (Visitor) (Class UB) visa.