Zayed (Migration)

This matter concerned an application for a Subclass 602 Medical Treatment visa, where the applicant sought to remain in Australia for ongoing treatment of anxiety, depression, and a compulsive disorder. The applicant had been in Australia since 2005 and had previously applied for a permanent visa, which was refused and affirmed. The Tribunal was required to determine whether the applicant met the criteria for the visa, specifically whether the visit was for medical or related purposes, whether the applicant was medically unfit to depart Australia, and whether the applicant genuinely intended to stay temporarily for the visa purpose.

The Tribunal found that the applicant did not meet the requirements of clause 602.211, as the applicant's long residence in Australia and the nature of his conditions did not satisfy the requirement that the visit be for medical treatment or related purposes. Furthermore, the Tribunal determined that the applicant did not meet the criteria under clause 602.212(6) for being medically unfit to depart Australia, as he had not turned 50, had not met all criteria for a previous permanent visa application other than health, and there was no evidence from a Medical Officer of the Commonwealth confirming he was medically unfit to depart due to a permanent or deteriorating condition.

Crucially, the Tribunal was not satisfied that the applicant genuinely intended to stay temporarily in Australia for the purpose of the visa, as required by clause 602.215. This conclusion was based on several factors, including the applicant's failure to attend a scheduled colonoscopy in 2019, the lack of detailed medical evidence regarding his mental health and unfitness to travel, and the availability of comparable psychiatric treatment and medication in his home country of Jordan. The Tribunal also noted the applicant's history of applying for numerous visas, leading to the impression that he was seeking to extend his stay in Australia rather than genuinely pursue medical treatment.

Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicant a Medical Treatment (Visitor) (Class UB) visa, finding that the applicant did not meet the necessary visa requirements.