Wang (Migration)

This matter concerned an application for a Subclass 602 Medical Treatment visa by an applicant who had sustained a workplace injury in Australia. The central dispute revolved around whether the applicant genuinely intended to stay temporarily in Australia for the purpose of receiving medical treatment, or if this requirement was displaced due to the applicant being medically unfit to depart. The decision was made by Member Meena Sripathy of the Tribunal.

The Tribunal was required to determine the correct approach to assessing the applicant's eligibility for the visa, specifically in relation to clauses 602.212 and 602.215 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994. This involved considering whether it was necessary to first identify the relevant purpose of the application under clause 602.212 before assessing the applicant's genuine temporary stay intention under clause 602.215, in light of conflicting Federal Circuit Court authorities.

The Tribunal considered the judicial authorities of *El Mir v MICMSMA* and *DET22 v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs*. It observed that while *El Mir* suggested a sequential assessment, *DET22* indicated that this was not a universal principle. The Tribunal noted that both clauses 602.212 and 602.215 had been explained and discussed with the applicant. The applicant provided evidence of ongoing medical treatment for workplace injuries dating back to 2016 and 2017, supported by medical certificates and a letter from his GP, indicating he was under the care of multiple specialists and unfit for work. He was receiving weekly income from an insurer and paying rent in Australia.

Ultimately, the Tribunal remitted the application for reconsideration by the Minister. The Tribunal directed that the applicant met the criteria for a Subclass 602 visa under both clause 602.212 and clause 602.215.