Xu (Migration)

Case

[2022] AATA 5020

16 December 2022


Details
AGLC Case Decision Date
Xu (Migration) [2022] AATA 5020 [2022] AATA 5020 16 December 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal considered an application for a Subclass 602 Medical Treatment (Visitor) visa made by a citizen of China who was residing in New South Wales. The applicant sought to remain in Australia for approximately 12 months to undergo psychotherapy, mindful and relaxation exercises, and drug therapy for anxiety, trauma, and depression. The primary dispute concerned whether the applicant had adequate means of support during his intended stay, as required by clause 602.216 of the Migration Regulations 1994.

The Tribunal was required to determine two key issues. Firstly, whether the applicant met the criteria for an exception to the adequate means of support requirement, specifically whether he was medically unfit to depart Australia under clause 602.212(6). Secondly, if this exception did not apply, whether the applicant had demonstrated adequate means, or access to adequate means, to support himself during his proposed 12-month stay in Australia.

In its reasoning, the Tribunal found that the applicant did not meet the cumulative requirements of clause 602.212(6) because he was not yet 50 years old and there was no evidence from a Medical Officer of the Commonwealth indicating he was medically unfit to depart Australia due to a permanent or deteriorating disease or condition. Consequently, the adequate means of support requirement under clause 602.216 applied. The Tribunal noted that the applicant had stated he did not have sufficient funds at the time of application due to COVID-19 and would seek assistance from a friend, identified as Dr Cheung. However, no financial evidence, such as bank statements or taxation returns, nor statutory declarations from third parties offering financial assistance, were provided with the application. The Tribunal concluded that the applicant had failed to demonstrate he had adequate means or access to adequate means of support.

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

Areas of Law

  • Immigration

  • Administrative Law

Legal Concepts

  • Judicial Review

  • Procedural Fairness

  • Statutory Construction

Actions
Download as PDF Download as Word Document


Cases Citing This Decision

0

Cases Cited

0

Statutory Material Cited

0