1501520 (Migration)

1501520 (Migration) [2015] AATA 3635 (10 November 2015)
DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division
APPLICANTS:  Mrs Manisha Hamal Thapa
Mr Ranjay Thapa
CASE NUMBER:  1501520
DIBP REFERENCE(S):  BCC2014/3437544
MEMBER:Karen Synon
DATE:10 November 2015
PLACE OF DECISION:  Melbourne
DECISION:The Tribunal affirms the decisions not to grant the visa applicants Student (Temporary) (Class TU) visas.
APPLICANT:  Miss Victoria Thapa
DECISION:The Tribunal does not have jurisdiction in relation to Miss Victoria Thapa.
Statement made on 10 November 2015 at 12:09pm

STATEMENT OF DECISION AND REASONS
APPLICATION FOR REVIEW

This is an application for review of a decision made by a delegate of the Minister for Immigration on 14 January 2015 to refuse to grant the applicants Student (Temporary) (Class TU) visas under s.65 of the Migration Act 1958 (the Act).
The applicants applied for the visas on 14 December 2014. At the time of lodgement, Class TU contained a number of subclasses. Generally speaking, the subclass that can be granted to an applicant who applies as a student depends upon: the type of course in which the applicant is enrolled or has an offer of enrolment as his or her principal course (Subclass 570 - 575); whether the applicant has the support of the relevant Minister (Subclass 576); or whether the applicant has applied on the basis of being a Student Guardian (Subclass 580).
The applicants applied for review of the primary decision on 2 February 2015 and provided a copy of the department’s decision.
In the present case, the delegate assessed the first named applicant (the applicant) against the criteria for a Subclass 573 visa on the basis of enrolment in a Bachelor of Business (Accounting). The visa was refused because the applicant did not provide the evidence required to demonstrate she was a genuine student as required by cl.573.223 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations.
The applicant appeared before the Tribunal on 15 October 2015 to give evidence and present arguments. The second named applicant was present during the hearing but did not give evidence. The Tribunal hearing was conducted with the assistance of an interpreter in the Nepali and English languages. The applicants were represented in relation to the review by their registered migration agent. He did not attend the hearing.
For the following reasons, the Tribunal has concluded that it has no jurisdiction in relation to the third named applicant, Miss Victoria Thapa and that the decision under review should be should be affirmed in relation to the first and second named applicants.
CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE
Jurisdiction and Miss Victoria Thapa
The Tribunal has jurisdiction to review a decision under the Migration Act 1958 (the Act) if an application is properly made under s.347 or s.412 of that Act, or in limited circumstances not relevant to this application, s.29 of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975. Sections 338 and 411 of the Act and r.4.02(4) of the Migration Regulations 1994 set out the range of decisions that are reviewable in the Migration and Refugee Division of the Tribunal. They include decisions to refuse and cancel visas of various kinds and a range of sponsorship and nomination decisions, but the evidence before the Tribunal indicates that at the time the review application was lodged, no relevant decision had been made in respect of the third named applicant, Miss Victoria Thapa.
On 3 February 2015 (the day after the application for review was lodged) a case note records that a tribunal officer contacted the applicants’ representative and advised that because a secondary applicant, Miss Victoria Thapa (date of birth 26 May 2013) is not included in either the notification letter or the decision record the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to review Victoria Thapa. The representative was advised to speak to the Department as soon as possible and ask it to make a decision in respect of Victoria Thapa. The representative informed the tribunal officer that he would speak with the Department as soon as possible and forward any correspondence regarding Victoria Thapa immediately to the Tribunal once a decision has been made. The tribunal officer was thanked for her advice. A primary decision in respect of Miss Victoria Thapa was not provided to the Tribunal.
The Tribunal raised this issue with the applicant at the hearing and invited her comment. She said she did not know that the document was not there because she fully relied on the agent. She said she included her daughter on the form to the Tribunal (the review application form). The Tribunal explained again why it had formed the view that it has no jurisdiction in relation to her daughter. The applicant said she understood.
As no reviewable decision has been made in respect of the third named applicant at the time the review application was lodged, it follows that the application was not properly made and the Tribunal has no jurisdiction in respect of Miss Victoria Thapa.
Consideration of the substantive issue
In the present case, as the applicant currently has an offer of enrolment in a Bachelor of Business (Accounting) as her principal course, the subclass that may be granted is Subclass 573. The issue in the present case is whether the applicant is a ‘genuine applicant for entry and stay as a student’ having regard to the prescribed matters. With the exception of the student guardian visa, this is a requirement for all student visas. For Subclass 573, this requirement is contained in cl.573.223, which is extracted in the attachment to this decision.
The requirements of cl.573.223 differ depending upon whether or not the applicant is, and was at the time of application, an ‘eligible higher degree student’ who has a confirmation of enrolment (COE) in each course of study for which they are such a student. ‘Eligible higher degree student’ is defined in cl.573.111 to mean an applicant for a Subclass 573 visa who is enrolled in a bachelor’s degree or a masters degree by coursework or for visa applications made on or after 23 November 2014 an advanced diploma in the higher education sector, and any preliminary course, with an eligible education provider or, in some cases, an educational business partner. Eligible education providers, and educational business partners, are those specified by the Minister in an instrument.
On the evidence before the Tribunal, the applicant in this case has not at any relevant time been an eligible higher degree student with a corresponding CoE and cl.573.223(1A) does not apply. As such, to meet cl.573.223, the applicant must give evidence in accordance with the requirements set out in Schedule 5A to the Regulations for the highest assessment level for the applicant. Broadly speaking, these requirements relate to English language ability, financial capacity, and other prescribed matters, and differ depending upon the subclass sought and the applicant’s assessment level. Additionally, the Regulations require that the Minister is satisfied that: the applicant is a genuine student having regard to the stated intention to comply with the applicable visa conditions, and any other relevant matter; and that while the applicant holds the visa he or she will have access to the funds relied upon to satisfy the Schedule 5A financial capacity requirements.
Does the applicant meet the applicable evidentiary requirements in Schedule 5A?
The assessment level that applies to the applicant is the highest assessment level at the time of application for the relevant course of study for the subclass of visa: r.1.42. ‘Assessment level’ and ‘highest assessment level’ are defined in r.1.03. ‘Assessment level’ means the level of assessment specified by the Minister for a kind of passport. The highest assessment level for a single course of study that is a registered course, is the assessment level for that course of study. If the applicant is undertaking 2 or more registered courses of study, the highest assessment level is the assessment level for those courses (excluding any ELICOS course) that has the highest number.
In this case, the applicant holds a passport of Nepal. The assessment level for a holder of such a passport for Subclass 573 (the subclass for the applicant’s principal course) is assessment level 3. In this case, the highest assessment level to which the applicant is subject is assessment level 3.
The evidentiary requirements for this assessment level for Subclass 573 are set out in Part 5 of Schedule 5A and are extracted in the attachment to this decision.
English language requirements – Schedule 5A507
The applicant has a Letter of Offer in relation to a Bachelor of Business. She has provided a Confirmation of Enrolment dated 15 October 2015. The Confirmation of Enrolment for this course (dated 15 October 2015) indicates that the education provider has specified that the applicant’s previous studies are sufficient to meet its English requirements. The Tribunal also notes that the applicant has, less than 2 years before the date of the visa application, as the holder of a student visa successfully completed a substantial part of a course (other than a foundation course) that was conducted in English and was leading to a qualification from the Australian Obligations Framework the Certificate for level or higher. In this respect the Tribunal notes that the applicant showed it evidence that she had completed a Certificate IV in Information Technology on 4 December 2012. As she applied for this visa on 14 December 2014 the Tribunal considers that for her to have successfully completed the Certificate IV on 4 December 2012 that she had completed a substantial part of the course less than two years before the date of application. Therefore the applicant meets 5A507 and the English language proficiency requirements of Schedule 5A.
Financial Capacity Requirements
The financial capacity the applicant must demonstrate is prescribed in 5A508.
The applicant is required to have funds from an acceptable source that are sufficient to meet her course fees, living costs for 12 months and to meet the travel costs of the family.
Living costs for 12 months for the applicant ($18,610), her spouse ($6,513) and her one dependent child ($3,722) are $28,845.
Based on her education provider’s statement the applicant will be required to pay 4 instalments of $3,875 over the first 12 month study period (in addition to the $1,000 deposit she has already paid). This equates to $15,500 which is also about half the cost of the 2 year course.
The applicant estimated the approximate cost of one way travel to Nepal for each family member to be $1,000 to Nepal per person including her child. However, given her child’s age the Tribunal considers $2,000 to be an adequate calculation.
The applicant must therefore demonstrate financial capacity in the following amounts:

Course Fees

$15,500

Living costs

$28,845

Travel costs

$2,000

School costs

Not applicable

TOTAL

$46,345

The primary decision records that when applying for the Subclass 573 visa onshore on 14 December 2014 there was insufficient information provided at the time of lodgement to satisfy the case officer that the applicant met the Schedule 5A criteria for assessment level 3. On 16 December 2014 an email was sent to her nominated migration agent requesting documentation to satisfy schedule 5A criteria regarding financial requirements. The applicant was required to provide these documents within 28 days. A request for additional time to provide these documents was requested but declined. The delegate refused the visa because s/he was not satisfied that the applicant met the 5A508 requirements.
The application for review was lodged on 2 February 2015. On 3 February 2015 the Tribunal wrote to the applicants acknowledging the application for review and relevantly advised “if you wish to provide material or written arguments for the Tribunal to consider, you should do so as soon as possible.”
On 15 September 2015 the Tribunal wrote to the applicants inviting them to attend a hearing on 15 October 2015 to give evidence and present arguments in relation to their case. The applicants were also asked to provide, within 7 days of the receipt of the hearing invitation, “all documents you intend to rely on to establish that you meet the criteria for the visa”. Relevantly the applicant was also asked the provide the following information:
- A copy of your current Certificate of Enrolment (COE) as required for the grant of a student visa.
- Document/s that show you are currently enrolled in a course, or have an offer of enrolment in a registered course, as required for the grant of a student visa.
- Documents that show your past studies in Australia, including copies of all your attendance certificates, academic transcripts and certificates of completion as well as documents evidencing any work related to your past or intended studies in Australia.
- Documents that demonstrate you have sufficient funds, or access to funds, to pay course fees, living costs, school costs (where relevant), and travel costs over the relevant period, including:
·    evidence of fees of current or proposed course/s you have already paid or still owe for past courses
·    evidence of funds from an acceptable source
o if you seek to rely on a money deposit, you may need to show how long the deposit was held immediately before the date of your visa application
o if you have a loan secured against a money deposit, evidence of where the money deposit came from, and the loan must still be current
·    evidence of the regular income of any person who is providing funds to you (including yourself), and their relationship to you
·    evidence that you have genuine access to the funds that you declare while you hold a student visa, such as evidence of any money you have received or been given.
None of the requested documents were provided prior to the hearing.
At the hearing the applicant provided a number of documents including a letter from Sandra and Durjay Thapa dated 23 September 2015 which relevantly reads:
We declare that we will financially support Manisha and Ranjay, if need be, while ever they remain in Australia. Ranjay is the youngest brother of Durjay who has lived in Australia since May 1990 and is an Australian citizen and is married to Sandra Thapa. Attached are bank statements from ING, Sandra Thapa nee Parkinson and the St George Bank demonstrating access to funds of $46,440.
The applicant gave oral evidence that Durjay Thapa is her brother-in-law. The Tribunal noted that her brother-in-law did not appear to be an ‘acceptable person’ according to the Regulations and that the documentation provided did not appear to demonstrate the required funds from an acceptable source. As the applicant had also not provided a current Letter of Offer or Confirmation of Enrolment the hearing was adjourned and the applicant was provided with time in which to return to the Tribunal with these documents. The hearing resumed later the same morning. The financial documents provided by the applicant are:
A statement for the period 30 June 2015 to 1 October 2015 from ING Direct in the name of Ms Sandra Parkinson recording a credit balance of $13,845.72 at 31 January 2015 and a credit balance of $15,189.29 at 30 June 2015. No earlier statements were provided.
A ‘Statement of Account – Portfolio Loan’ in the name of Durjay Kumar Thapa and Sandra Thapa. It is issued by St George Bank and the statement period is 1 August 2015 to 31 August 2014. It records a negative balance of $298,777.73 at 31 August 2015 against an “approved credit limit [of] $317,000”. The available credit is recorded as $18,222.27.
Therefore even if the Tribunal were to find that the financial evidence was from an acceptable source(s) and an acceptable individual(s) and that the regular income of any individual providing funds to the applicant was sufficient to accumulate the level of funding provided, the total evidence of funds provided amounts to only $33,411.56. This is significantly short of the $46,345 required.
Asked if the applicant had any savings of her own she said she had about $2,000. Even including these savings, notwithstanding that no documentary evidence of these savings have been provided, the total amount of available funds to the applicant falls well short of that required as calculated above.
The applicant said at the hearing that she would provide more evidence ”as soon as [she] can”. The Tribunal took this as a request for additional time. This request was refused for the following reasons which it discussed with the applicant at the hearing:
oShe applied for the visa on 14 December 2014; that is 10 months before the hearing but did not provide with her application sufficient information to satisfy the Schedule 5A criteria.
oThe delegate contacted her representative on 16 December 2014 requesting these documents within 28 days. On 13 January 2015 additional time was requested but refused.
oThe visas were refused on 14 January 2015 on the basis that the requested evidence in relation to the Schedule 5A criteria was not provided.
oThe day after the application for review was lodged on 14 December 2014, the Tribunal wrote to the applicants acknowledging the application and relevantly advising “if you wish to provided material or arguments for the Tribunal to consider you should do so as soon as possible”.
oAt the time the review applicant was lodged the applicants were fully aware that the issue was the financial requirements because it was clearly stated in the primary decision, a copy of which was provided to the Tribunal.
oThe applicants were given a month’s notice of the hearing and specifically requested to provide all of the documents detailed above at paragraph 26 “at least 7 days before the hearing date”.
oNo evidence in relation to the Schedule 5A requirements was received prior to the hearing.
oThe Tribunal gave the applicants an adjournment to provide a Confirmation of Enrolment or Letter of Offer and evidence of funds, none of which had been provided as requested.
Given the facts set out above the Tribunal formed the view that the applicants were on notice as to the matters in contention on review for 9 months before attending the Tribunal hearing. Further, the Tribunal had done everything it could to assist the applicants to achieve a successful outcome by carefully identifying all the evidence that was required. None of the identified evidence was provided before the hearing as requested and the evidence provided at the hearing was not sufficient to satisfy the Schedule 5A financial requirements for the reasons set out above. Finally, the Tribunal notes that the applicants were represented in relation to the review and therefore had the assistance and advice of a registered migration agent. For these reasons the Tribunal refused the applicant’s request for an extension of time after the hearing to provide the evidence “when [she] can”.
The Tribunal notes that no further submissions or evidence has in any case been provided by the applicants since the hearing.
The Tribunal is therefore not satisfied that the applicant has given evidence that she has funds from an acceptable source that are sufficient to meet her course fees, living costs and travel costs for the first 12 months.
The applicant therefore does not meet the financial requirements of 5A508.
As the applicant does not meet the requirements of 5A508 it is not necessary for the Tribunal to consider if she meets the ‘Other Requirements’ of 5A509.
On the basis of the above, the applicant has not given evidence in accordance with the applicable Schedule 5A requirements and therefore does not satisfy cl.573.223(2)(a).
For these reasons, the Tribunal finds that criteria for the grant of a Subclass 573 visa are not met. As there is no evidence the applicant is eligible to be granted a student visa of another subclass, the decision under review must be affirmed.
DECISIONS

The Tribunal does not have jurisdiction in relation to Miss Victoria Thapa.
The Tribunal affirms the decisions not to grant the first and second named visa applicants Student (Temporary) (Class TU) visas.
Karen Synon

Member
ATTACHMENT – Extracts from the Migration Regulations 1994
573.223(1)    The Minister is satisfied that the applicant is a genuine applicant for entry and stay as a student because:
(a)the Minister is satisfied that the applicant intends genuinely to stay in Australia temporarily, having regard to:
(i)the applicant’s circumstances; and
(ii)the applicant’s immigration history; and
(iii)if the applicant is a minor — the intentions of a parent, legal guardian or spouse of the applicant; and
(iv)any other relevant matter; and
(b)the applicant meets the requirements of subclause (1A) or (2).
(1A)If the applicant is, and was, at the time of application, an eligible higher degree student who has a confirmation of enrolment in each course of study for which the applicant is an eligible higher degree student:
(a)the applicant gives the Minister evidence that the applicant has:
(i)a level of English language proficiency that satisfies the applicant’s eligible education provider; and
(ii)educational qualifications required by the eligible education provider; and
(b)the Minister is satisfied that the applicant is a genuine applicant for entry and stay as a student, having regard to:
(i)the stated intention of the applicant to comply with any conditions subject to which the visa is granted; and
(ii)any other relevant matter; and
(c)the Minister is satisfied that, while the applicant holds the visa, the applicant will have sufficient funds to meet:
(i)the costs and expenses required to support the applicant during the proposed stay in Australia; and
(ii)the costs and expenses required to support each member (if any) of the applicant’s family unit.
(2)If subclause 573.223(1A) does not apply:
(a)the applicant gives the Minister evidence in accordance with the requirements mentioned in Schedule 5A for the highest assessment level for the applicant; and
(b)the Minister is satisfied that the applicant is a genuine applicant for entry and stay as a student, having regard to:
(i)the stated intention of the applicant to comply with any conditions subject to which the visa is granted; and
(ii)any other relevant matter; and
(c)the Minister is satisfied that, while the applicant holds the visa, the applicant will have access to the funds demonstrated or declared in accordance with the requirements in Schedule 5A relating to the applicant’s financial capacity.
Division 3 - Requirements for assessment level 3
Clause 5A507    English language proficiency
[5A507] (1) The applicant must give evidence that one of the following applies:
(a) the applicant:
(i) will not undertake an ELICOS before commencing his or her principal course; and
(ii) achieved, in an IELTS test that was taken less than 2 years before the date of the application, an Overall Band Score of at least 6.0 or the required score in an English language proficiency test that is specified in a legislative instrument made by the Minister under clause 5A102;
[(ii) amended by MA(ROP)R 2014 with effect on and from 22/03/2014 - transitional/application see Sch 13 2801(5) - LEGEND note]
(aa) the applicant has:
(i) achieved, in an IELTS test that was taken less than 2 years before the time of making the application, an Overall Band Score of at least 5.5 or the required score in an English language proficiency test that is specified in a legislative instrument made by the Minister under clause 5A102; and
[(i) amended by MA(ROP)R 2014 with effect on and from 22/03/2014 - transitional/application see Sch 13 2801(5) - LEGEND note]
(ii) enrolled in a foundation course before commencing the applicant’s principal course;
(b) the applicant:
(i) will undertake an ELICOS of no more than 30 weeks duration before commencing his or her principal course; and
(ii) achieved, in an IELTS test that was taken less than 2 years before the date of the application, an Overall Band Score of at least 5.0 or the required score in an English language proficiency test that is specified in a legislative instrument made by the Minister under clause 5A102;
[(ii) amended by MA(ROP)R 2014 with effect on and from 22/03/2014 - transitional/application see Sch 13 2801(5) - LEGEND note]
(c) the applicant:
(i) is fully funded; and
(ii) has a level of English language proficiency that satisfies his or her proposed education provider; and
(iii) if the applicant is to undertake an ELICOS before commencing his or her principal course — will undertake an ELICOS of no more than 30 weeks duration;
(d) the applicant had, less than 2 years before the date of the application:
(i) successfully completed the requirements for a Senior Secondary Certificate of Education, in a course that was conducted:
(A) in Australia; and
(B) in English; or
(ii) successfully completed the requirements for a Senior Secondary Certificate of Education, in a course that:
(A) is specified by the Minister in an instrument in writing for this sub-subparagraph; and
(B) was conducted outside Australia; and
(C) was conducted in English; or
(iii) as the holder of a student visa — successfully completed a substantial part of a course (other than a foundation course) that:
(A) was conducted in English; and
(B) was leading to a qualification from the Australian Qualifications Framework at the Certificate IV level or higher; or
(iv) successfully completed a substantial part of a course that:
(A) is specified by the Minister in an instrument in writing for this sub-subparagraph; and
(B) was conducted outside Australia; and
(C) was conducted in English; and
(D) was leading to a qualification from the Australian Qualifications Framework at the Certificate IV level or higher; or
(v) successfully completed a foundation course that was conducted:
(A) in Australia; and
(B) in English; or
(vi) successfully completed a course in foundation studies that:
(A) is specified by the Minister in an instrument in writing for this sub-subparagraph; and
(B) was conducted outside Australia; and
(C) was conducted in English;
(e) the applicant has:
(i) a level of English language proficiency that satisfies the applicant’s proposed education provider; and
(ii) at least 5 years of study in English undertaken in 1 or more of the following countries:
(A) Australia;
(B) Canada;
(C) New Zealand;
(D) South Africa;
(E) the Republic of Ireland;
(F) the United Kingdom;
(G) the United States of America.
[5A507] (2) For subclause (1), an applicant is not required to give evidence of English language proficiency if:
(a) the application was made outside Australia; and
(b) the applicant:
(i) provides a certificate of enrolment in a course that has been specified by the Minister in a legislative instrument under subregulation 1.44(2) (the specified course); and
[(i) amended by MA(ROP)R 2014 with effect on and from 22/03/2014 - transitional/application see Sch 13 2801(5) - LEGEND note]
(ii) will not undertake any other course before commencing the specified course.
[(ii) amended by MA(ROP)R 2014 with effect on and from 22/03/2014 - transitional/application see Sch 13 2801(5) - LEGEND note]
Clause 5A508    Financial capacity
[5A508] (1) The applicant must give, in accordance with this clause:
[(1) amended by MA(ROP)R 2014 with effect on and from 22/03/2014 - transitional/application see Sch 13 2801(1) and 2801(2) - LEGEND note]
(a) evidence that the applicant has funds from an acceptable source that are sufficient to meet the following expenses for the first 12 months:
(i) course fees;
(ii) living costs;
(iii) school costs; and
(aa) a declaration by the applicant stating that he or she has access to funds from an acceptable source that are sufficient to meet course fees, living costs and school costs for the remainder of the applicant’s proposed stay in Australia after the first 12 months; and
(b) evidence that the applicant has funds from an acceptable source that are sufficient to meet travel costs; and
(c) evidence that the regular income of any individual (including the applicant) providing funds to the applicant was sufficient to accumulate the level of funding being provided by that individual.
[5A508] (1A) If the applicant is:
(a) fully funded; or
(b) an applicant:
(i) who is not funded, wholly or partly, by:
(A) the Commonwealth Government, or the government of a State or Territory; or
(B) the government of a foreign country; or
(C) a multilateral agency; and
(ii) who proposes to undertake a course of study that is, or courses of study that are together, of a duration of less than 12 months; and
(iii) for whom, if applying
in Australia, the proposed period of stay will result in the applicant’s total period of lawful stay in Australia being less than 12 months; or
(c) the subject of an arrangement by which the course fees, living costs and travel costs for the primary person’s full period, assessed for the primary person alone, will be met by:
      (i) a provincial or state government in a foreign country, with the written support of the government of that country; or
(ii) an organisation specified in a legislative instrument made by the Minister for this paragraph;
[(ii) amended by MA(ROP)R 2014 with effect on and from 22/03/2014 - transitional/application see Sch 13 2801(5) - LEGEND note]
the applicant must give evidence that the applicant has access to funds that are sufficient to support each member of the applicant’s family unit who is not a family applicant.
[5A508] (2) In this clause:
financial support, from an applicant’s proposed education provider, means:
(a) a scholarship that:
(i) is awarded on the basis of merit and an open selection process; and
(ii) is awarded to a student who is enrolled in a course leading to a Certificate IV qualification or a higher qualification; and
(iii) is awarded to the greater of:
(A) not more than 10% of overseas students in a course intake; and
(B) not more than 3 overseas students in a course intake; or
(b) a waiver of the applicant’s course fees carried out in the following circumstances:
(i) the applicant is part of an exchange program that involves:
(A) a formal agreement between an education provider and an education institution in a foreign country; and
(B) the reciprocal waiver of course fees as part of that agreement;
(ii) the applicant proposes to study full-time;
(iii) the applicant’s proposed studies will be credited to a course undertaken by the applicant in the applicant’s home country.
funds from an acceptable source means one or more of the following:
[(a) amended by MA(ROP)R 2014 with effect on and from 22/03/2014 - transitional/application see Sch 13 2801(1) and 2801(2) - LEGEND note]
(a) if the applicant:
(i) has successfully completed at least 75% of the requirements for his or her principal course; and
(ii) has applied for the visa in order to complete the course; and
(iii) does not propose to undertake any further course;
a money deposit held by an acceptable individual;
[(b) amended by MA(ROP)R 2014 with effect on and from 22/03/2014 - transitional/application see Sch 13 2801(1) and 2801(2) - LEGEND note]
(b) if paragraph (a) does not apply — a money deposit that an acceptable individual has held for at least the 3 months immediately before the date of the application;
[(c) amended by MA(ROP)R 2014 with effect on and from 22/03/2014 - transitional/application see Sch 13 2801(1) and 2801(2) - LEGEND note]
(c) a loan from a financial institution made to, and held in the name of, an acceptable individual;
(d) a loan from the government of the applicant’s home country;
(e) financial support from:
(i) the applicant’s proposed education provider; or
(ii) the Commonwealth Government, or the government of a State or Territory; or
(iii) the government of a foreign country; or
(iv) a corporation that:
(A) conducts commercial activities outside the country in which it is based; and
(B) employs the applicant in a role in relation to which the applicant’s principal course is of direct relevance; or
(v) a multilateral agency; or
(vi) a provincial or state government in a foreign country, provided with the written support of the government of that country; or
(vii) an organisation specified by the Minister in an instrument in writing for this subparagraph; or
(viii) an acceptable non-profit organisation.
Clause 5A509    Other requirements
[5A509]    The applicant must give evidence that:
(a) he or she has successfully completed secondary schooling to the year 12 level (or its equivalent); or
(b) he or she:
(i) has successfully completed secondary schooling to the year 11 level (or its equivalent); and
(ii) has successfully completed in Australia a foundation course; or
(c) he or she:
(i) has successfully completed secondary schooling to the year 11 level (or its equivalent); and
(ii) has a certificate of enrolment in a foundation course that is to be undertaken in Australia before commencing the applicant’s principal course; or
(d) he or she:
(i) has successfully completed secondary schooling to the year 11 level (or its equivalent); and
(ii) has successfully completed a course in foundation studies that:
(A) is specified by the Minister in an instrument in writing for this sub-subparagraph; and
(B) was conducted outside Australia; or
(e) he or she has successfully completed a qualification from the Australian Qualifications Framework at the Certificate IV level or higher in a course that was conducted in Australia; or
(f) he or she has a certificate of enrolment in a course that:
(i) leads to a qualification from the Australian Qualifications Framework at the Certificate IV level or higher; and
(ii) is to be undertaken in Australia before commencing the applicant’s principal course; or
(g) he or she has successfully completed a qualification from the Australian Qualifications Framework at the Certificate IV level or higher in a course that:
(i) is specified by the Minister in an instrument in writing for this subparagraph; and
(ii) was conducted outside Australia.

[2015] AATA 3635

10 November 2015

Key Legal Topics

Areas of Law

Immigration

Administrative Law

Legal Concepts

Jurisdiction

Judicial Review

Procedural Fairness

Standing

Statutory Construction

Course Fees	$15,500
Living costs	$28,845
Travel costs	$2,000
School costs	Not applicable
TOTAL	$46,345