Sun (Migration)

This matter concerned an application for a Medical Treatment (Visitor) (Class UB) visa, Subclass 602, heard by Senior Member Louise Nicholls of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. The applicant sought to enter or remain in Australia temporarily for medical treatment. The core of the dispute revolved around whether the applicant genuinely intended to stay temporarily in Australia for the stated purpose of medical treatment.

The Tribunal was required to determine if the applicant met the criteria for the Subclass 602 visa, specifically clause 602.215 of the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth). This clause mandates that an applicant must genuinely intend to stay temporarily in Australia for the purpose for which the visa is granted, considering substantial compliance with previous visa conditions, intent to comply with the new visa conditions, and any other relevant matters. The Tribunal also considered whether an exception under subclause 602.212(6) applied, which relates to applicants who are medically unfit to depart Australia after applying for a permanent visa and meeting all criteria except health.

The Tribunal found that the applicant, born on 29 March 1998, had not reached the age of 50 and therefore did not meet the criteria for the exception under subclause 602.212(6). Consequently, the applicant was required to satisfy clause 602.215. The Tribunal noted a lack of substantial evidence supporting the applicant's claim of a genuine intention to seek medical treatment. While the applicant provided a form and a letter from Dr. Huang indicating treatment for depression, including referral to a psychologist, the Tribunal concluded that this evidence was insufficient to demonstrate a genuine intention to stay temporarily for medical treatment as required by the regulations.

Based on these findings, the Tribunal determined that the applicant did not meet the requirements of clause 602.215. Accordingly, the decision under review, which refused the grant of the visa, was affirmed.