2204340 (Migration)

[2022] AATA 3614

2204340 (Migration) [2022] AATA 3614 (12 September 2022)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

CASE NUMBER:  2204340

MEMBER:Michael Biviano

DATE:12 September 2022

PLACE OF DECISION:  Melbourne

DECISION:The Tribunal affirms the decision to cancel the applicant’s Class TU visa.

Statement made on 12 September 2022 at 9:10 am

CATCHWORDS

MIGRATION – cancellation – Student (Temporary) (Class TU) visa – Subclass 573 Higher Education Sector – enrolment in a registered Higher Education course – applicant ceased enrolment – applicant changed to diploma courses – financial hardship – applicant charged and detained – applicant seeking permanent residence – decision under review affirmed  

LEGISLATION

Education Services for Overseas Students Act 2000
Migration Act 1958, ss 48, 116, 140, 189, 198
Migration Regulations 1994, Schedule 8, Condition 8202; r 2.55

Any references appearing in square brackets indicate that information has been omitted from this decision pursuant to section 378 of the Migration Act 1958 and replaced with generic information.

STATEMENT OF DECISION AND REASONS

APPLICATION FOR REVIEW

1. This is an application for review of a decision dated 2 March 2017 made by a delegate of the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection to cancel the applicant’s Subclass 573 Higher Education Sector visa under s 116(1)(b) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (the Act).

2. The delegate cancelled the visa on the basis that the applicant had not complied with subclause (2)(a) of condition 8202 of his visa as he was not enrolled in registered course of study from 28 April 2016 until decision of the delegate. The issue in the present case is whether that ground for cancellation is made out, and if so, whether the visa should be cancelled.

3. The applicant was notified of the visa cancellation on 21 March 2022, and he filed his application for a review of the cancellation decision on 24 March 2022.

4. The hearing was initially listed for 10 June 2022 but adjourned at the request of the applicant due to health concerns of the applicant as a consequence of an injury sustained while in detention.

5. The applicant appeared before the Tribunal on 5 September 2022 to give evidence and present arguments.

6. It is appropriate to highlight that a decision maker is not required to make the applicant’s case. It is for the applicant to satisfy the Tribunal that the requirements of the Act and Regulations have been met. Although the concept of onus of proof is not appropriate to administrative decision making, the relevant facts of the individual case have to be supplied by the applicant, in as much detail as is necessary, to enable the examiner to establish the relevant facts.

7. For the following reasons, the Tribunal has concluded that the decision to cancel the applicant’s visa should be affirmed.

   CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE

8. The issue in the present case is whether the applicant, as the holder of a student visa, has breached condition 8202 of Schedule 8 to the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth) (the Regulations). If the applicant has breached that condition, under s 116(1) of the Act, the visa may be cancelled.

   Did the applicant comply with Condition 8202?

9. Condition 8202, as it applies in this case, is set out in the attachment to this decision. Relevantly, it requires that the applicant:

   ·be enrolled in a registered course, or in limited cases, a full-time course of study or training: 8202(2)(a)

   ·maintain enrolment in a registered course that will provide a qualification from the Australian Qualification Framework that is at the same level as, or at a higher level than, the course in relation to which the visa was granted: 8202(2)(b)

   ·has not been certified by his or her education provider, as not achieving satisfactory course progress as specified: 8202(3)(a), and

   ·has not been certified by his or her education provider, as not achieving satisfactory course attendance as specified: 8202(3)(b).

10. In the present case, the applicant’s visa was cancelled on the basis the applicant was not enrolled in a full-time registered course from 28 April 2016, until the cancellation of the visa on 2 March 2017.

11. The Decision Record of the delegate of the Immigration and Border Protection on 2 March 2017, which was provided to the Tribunal by the applicant, confirms the Department cancelled the Student (Temporary) (Class TU) Higher Education Sector (Subclass 573) visa (student visa) which was granted on 22 January 2015 and the reasons for the cancellation of the visa (Decision Record).

12. The applicant is [an age]-year-old Indian national. The applicant gave evidence that he came to Australia in February 2015 on the student visa to study a [Course 1] leading to a [Course 2] at [University 1]. Those studies were being undertaken at [University 1’s] campus in Sydney. He initially resided at his cousin’s residence in [Suburb 1].

13. He gave evidence that he commenced the [Course 1] but struggled with meeting the tuition fees for that course which claimed were $6,000 for the course. He obtained advice and was recommended to change course to a different provider which was more affordable. He transferred to [College 1] to complete the [Course 1] and the cost of the course was approximately a half of the cost of the course he was undertaking at [University 1].

14. The applicant claimed in evidence that while undertaking those studies, he made friends with a group of guys, got involved in drinking and gambling, to the extent that he lost funds necessary for his tuition costs. He claimed that in or about December 2015, he had a falling out with his cousin over his lifestyle and moved out and went to live with his friends who lived in the same street in [Suburb 1].

15. He claimed that his behaviour was such that he was not in the right state of mind. He claimed that for a period of 2-3 months he lost touch with his education provider in or about April 2016 and he did not pay the tuition fees. He consequently lost the enrolment at the education provider.

16. He claimed that he borrowed money from his uncle overseas to pay for his tuition fees, but he also gambled that away.

17. He claimed that he received a notice from his education provider at the time, which appears to be [College 1], that due to enrolment being cancelled for non-payment of fees, the Department would be notified. Despite such notice from the education provider, he did not enrol in a course of study at another education provider.

18. The applicant claimed that he was working and attempting to get himself back in the position that he could return to a normal lifestyle. However, he confirmed in evidence that he did not enrol in registered course of study from 28 April 2016.

19. The applicant in evidence confirmed that he did not complete the [Course 1] at [University 1] or the [Course 1] at [College 1]. Further he did not complete any of the other courses he was enrolled in.

20. He gave evidence that during 2016 and 2017 he changed his residential address several times and that apart from December 2015 when he left his cousin’s residence, he did not inform the Department of his change of address. He gave evidence that his email address on arriving in Australia was [Email Address 1]. He claimed in evidence that the account was linked to his Indian mobile telephone number and rarely used that email address after changing his mobile telephone in mid-2016. He confirmed that the email address still belongs to him. His new email address [Email Address 2].

21. The Decision Record confirmed that the delegate had obtained a search of the Provider Registration and International Student Management System (PRISMS) register.

22. According to the PRISMS website, the Department of Education, Skills and Employment is responsible for the Commonwealth Register of Institutions and Courses for Overseas Students. It is recorded that PRISMS is a computer system developed by that Department in association with the Department of Home Affairs for the purpose of receiving and storing information about accepted overseas students that is given to the Secretary under the Education Services for Overseas Students Act2000 (Cth). It is further noted that PRISMS provides a secure system for providers of registered educational institutions to comply with legislative requirements by issuing confirmations of enrolment as ‘evidence of enrolment’ in a registered full-time course as required by the Department of Home Affairs and reporting changes in course enrolment, particularly where study ceases, or the duration of the study changes.

23. It is therefore apparent that PRISMS is a business record of the Department of Education, Skills and Employment and is used by the Department of Home Affairs as evidence of enrolment for the purposes of assessing the grant of student visas. Generally, while it is possible providers may not update PRISMS as required, the Tribunal accepts that PRISMS is a reliable record of enrolments, unless there is specific evidence to the contrary in relation to a particular case. In this case the delegate has relied on the search undertaken on PRISMS to ascertain whether the applicant is enrolled in a course of study.

24. The Decision Record confirmed that:

    a.The applicant had not been enrolled in a registered course of study since 28 April 2016 being a period of 10 months, 4 days.

    b.The PRISMS search indicated that he was not enrolled in a course of study from 28 April 2016.

25. The PRISMS search indicated that the applicant had not maintained the study plan that he outlined when he applied for his student visa and the details of his progress against the requirements of his enrolled courses were as follows:

    ❍     CoE [Code] – [Course 1] -Period of study 02/03/2015–30/11/2015 – Course Status: Cancelled - 07/08/2015 Student notifies of cessation of studies.

    ❍     CoE [Code] – [Course 1] – Period of study 14/09/2015–13/03/2016 – Course Status: Finished.

    ❍     CoE [Code] – [Course 2] – Period of study 29/02/2016–30/11/2017 – Course Status: Cancelled - 07/08/2015 Student notifies of cessation of studies.

    ❍     CoE [Code] [Course 3] – Period of study 28/03/2016–26/03/2017 – Course Status: Cancelled – 28/04/2016 Non commencement of studies.

26. On 13 February 2017 the Department sent to the applicant a Notice of Intention to Consider Cancellation (NOICC). The applicant in evidence initially claimed he did not receive the NOICC, but then claimed in mid-2017 one of his friends asked him about his visa status, he checked online and discovered he no longer had a visa. He accessed his [Email Address 1] account and discovered the NOICC. Based on the applicant’s evidence the Tribunal accepts the applicant received the NOICC.

27. He claims that in mid-2017, when he discovered that he did not have a visa, he applied for a [permanent] visa and obtained a bridging visa. However, he claimed he had no work or study rights. He claimed that the [permanent visa application] was refused in 2020 when he was imprisoned, but he has applied for a review of that decision to the Tribunal. His evidence on the progress of this application was not convincing. The applicant stated in evidence that if the Tribunal did not set aside the cancellation of his visa, he would remain in detention and pursue his [permanent visa application].  

28. The applicant in evidence confirmed that he has not completed any of the courses he enrolled. He claims that his studies were interrupted by lifestyle and social friends. The applicant.

29. He confirmed in evidence that he was not enrolled in a course of study from 28 April 2016. There is no evidence in this case to suggest that the PRISMS search relied upon by the delegate was not accurate.

30. He claimed that he was imprisoned for [period] for offences relating to [specified offences], but no documentary evidence of the charges and sentence have been provided. He claims that he then was released from custody in December 2020 and then entered into detention, where he remains.

31. The applicant did not submit any additional documentation to the Tribunal in support of his application.

32. The applicant conceded in evidence that he was not enrolled in a registered course of study for the period from 28 April 2016, until the cancellation of the visa on 2 March 2017, being a period of more than 10 months. By reason of not being enrolled in a registered course of study, he did not meet condition 8202(2)(a) of his visa.

33. On the evidence before the Tribunal, the applicant was not enrolled in a registered course of study for the period from 28 April 2016, until the cancellation of the visa on 2 March 2017. Accordingly, the applicant has not complied with condition 8202(2)(a) of his visa. As this was a condition that was attached to his visa, the applicant breached a condition of his visa, and the visa is liable to cancellation under s 116(1)(b) of the Act.

    Consideration of the discretion to cancel the visa

34. Having found that the applicant has not complied with a condition of the visa, the Tribunal must consider whether the visa should be cancelled. There are no matters specified in the Act or Regulations that must be considered in the exercise of this discretion. The Tribunal has had regard to the circumstances of this case, including matters raised by the applicant, and matters in the Department’s procedural instruction ‘General visa cancellation powers’.

    The purpose of the visa holder’s travel and stay in Australia, and whether the visa holder has a compelling need to travel or to remain in Australia

35. The applicant gave evidence that he came to Australia to study and undertake the courses as discussed above.

36. As discussed above the applicant studied for just over a year and has not been enrolled in a registered course of study from 28 April 2016.

37. The Tribunal accepts that the applicant came to Australia for the purpose of studying in Australia.

38. Initially the applicant was enrolled in the [Course 1] and [Course 2] at [University 1]. The applicant changed education provider to [College 1] due to the cost and enrolled in a [Course 1] and [Course 3].

39. As discussed above he did not complete any of the courses that he enrolled in. He complained that he lost those enrolments due to his lifestyle, choice of friends, and losing tuition funds gambling. He accepts that they were matters within his responsibility.

40. The applicant did not attempt to enrol in a course after losing his enrolment in April 2016. He claimed that he was in a difficult place in April 2016 and then was seeking to get funds together to get his life back together.

41. The fact that the applicant made no attempt to re-enrol and did not observe that he had received a NOICC until after the cancellation of visa demonstrates an indifference by the applicant to undertaking study and that his priorities here in Australia had changed.

42. The applicant was not enrolled for a long period of time, more than 10 months, before the cancellation of his visa. The fact that he was not enrolled for that long period of time was due in part to a lack of finances and his failure to gain a new enrolment, which were matters that were his responsibility.

43. The gap in studies has revealed an intention not to study for a period while he was here in Australia.

44. The Tribunal accepts the applicant’s evidence that the since mid-2017, he has been here on a bridging visa with no work rights. Consequently, he could not afford to study and pay for tuition costs. He claimed that he has relied on financial support from family and his friends. He claimed that his friends had paid him money to look after the house they were staying at and buying groceries for the house.

45. The applicant gave evidence that in 2020 he was imprisoned for [period] due to a number of minor offences and having completed the term of imprisonment he was transferred into detention in December 2020, where he has remained.

46. The applicant intends to continue studying in Australia in the future if the cancellation of the visa is set aside. The applicant has claimed that he wants to study courses that will improve his prospects of remaining here permanently. He claimed that he had thought about undertaking [subject 1] courses or other courses which will improve his prospects of remaining here, but he had not made a final decision about what course he will complete.

47. The applicant has not undertaken any study since April 2016 and the Tribunal accepts that for a significant period of time since 2017, he has been unable to meet the costs for study and since August 2020 been incarcerated or in detention which would prevent him from undertaking studies.

48. Having regard to the applicant’s evidence and his conduct during his stay in Australia, in that he has undertaken some study during the time he has been in Australia, the Tribunal accepts that the applicant has travelled to Australia for the purpose of studying and he that intends to study in the future, but his gap in studies for 10 months between the NOICC and the cancellation of the visa, coupled together with his failure to respond to the NOICC and not being aware of it despite it being sent to his email address and failure to take steps to re-engage with study since April 2016, reveal an intention not to study for a substantial period of time due to matters within his responsibility. 

49. Furthermore, the applicant claimed his objective is to be successful and to do so he has to remain and become a permanent resident here, like his cousin. Such objective is inconsistent with the student visa program and coupled with his application for a [permanent] visa, reveals an intention to remain here on a permanent basis rather than to undertake study as a student.

50. For these reasons, the Tribunal gives these matters marginal weight towards the visa not being cancelled.

    The extent of compliance with visa conditions

51. The applicant was not enrolled at the appropriate level of course for the period from 28 April 2016 until the cancellation of the visa on 2 March 2017. Therefore, the applicant has not complied with condition 8202(2) for a long period of time. The non‑compliance with condition 8202(2) for such a long period of time may weigh towards cancelling the visa unless the Tribunal accepts his reasons for non-enrolment or finds he was not responsible for the reason of non-enrolment.

52. As discussed above, the applicant’s non-compliance with the visa appears to relate to his lifestyle, gambling, and resultant financial circumstances in the cessation of his enrolment in the business courses at [College 1] and his failure to get re-enrolled for a period of more than 10 months.

53. The Decision Record confirmed that the applicant had not responded to the NOICC dated 13 February 2017 and sent by registered mail to his last known address being [Address 1]. It was also sent by email to his email address - [Email Address 1]. As discussed above the applicant in evidence accepted receiving it by email, but it only came to his attention in mid-2017 when he checked his email account after discovering that he no longer had a valid visa. The letter sent by registered mail was returned after the visa was cancelled. The applicant gave evidence that the postal address was his cousin’s former address, but he had moved out in mid-2016.

54. The NOICC was received by the applicant, but due to his failure to regularly check his own email account he claims it was not brought to his attention. However, the Department has provided the NOICC to the applicant’s email address and he received it.

55. The applicant did not provide any details of notifying the Department of any change of address or contact details.

56. The applicant did not respond to the NOICC despite receiving it by way of email.

57. The Tribunal notes the operation of Reg 2.55(3) of the Regulations which enables documents to be given by way of email.

58. The Tribunal finds that apart from the matters before this Tribunal, there are no other matters raised about the applicant not being compliant with his visa.

59. The obligation for a student to be enrolled in a registered course of study, is the cornerstone of obtaining a student visa. Visa holders who hold a student visa are aware that one of the main conditions of the visa is that they must be enrolled in a registered course of study at the appropriate level and that they are responsible for ensuring they are enrolled in a registered course of study.

1. The Tribunal understands the applicant’s reasons for not being compliant with the visa, where the applicant was not enrolled in a course of study and accepts that those reasons for not being enrolled were within his control.

2. Having regard to these matters, the Tribunal gives these matters substantial weight towards the visa being cancelled.

   Degree of hardship that may be caused (financial, psychological, emotional, or other hardship)

3. The Tribunal asked the applicant if he or other members of his family would suffer hardship if the visa was cancelled.

4. The applicant gave evidence that if his visa was cancelled, it would cause him and his family a substantial degree of hardship as:

   a.He had provided some funds back over time to his family in India to help his family in particular his father who was looking after his and the families of his [relatives] who had passed away.

   b.He would have failed to live up to the expectations of his family to do better than his cousin who was a permanent resident here who works in [a specified industry].

   c.He would struggle to return to India due to the different cultures between Australia and India.

   d.He would regret having to return home in not completing a course or education as his family had spent a substantial amount of money on his education.

5. The applicant claims that he seeks to have a student visa so that he can undertake studies here with a view to remaining here permanently.

6. The Tribunal considers that while the applicant may have provided some funds back home, based on his evidence he has also received funds from his family for his studies. Considering in inability to work since 2017, his financial contribution back home is marginal at best and would not create a hardship for his family.

7. The Tribunal is not satisfied that the failure to live up to family expectations is not a hardship and the cultural difference between the countries would only provide a marginal hardship to his family.

8. The Tribunal notes that the applicant has not completed any courses while in Australia and that he has been funded in part by his family back home. He will return home to India with little to show for his studies in this country over the last seven years if the visa is cancelled. Further, the Tribunal accepts that there will be some hardship caused to the applicant and his family if the visa is cancelled, due to the cost of tuition fees that have been incurred during his time in Australia and his prospects of employment in India being weaker without his obtaining further academic qualifications. However, that is not the purpose of the visa and the tuition fees are likely to have been lost regardless if he changes courses to study [subject 1].

9. The Tribunal notes that there is nothing preventing the applicant returning home to India and if he returns home there is no evidence that he faces incarceration. There does not appear to be anything preventing him from returning home and undertaking studies back home.

10. The applicant claimed in evidence that he has a girlfriend here in Australia who is an Australian citizen, but they have physically separated due to his incarceration and the detention. A cancellation of the visa would place greater stress on the relationship.

11. In any event, the Tribunal finds that the above matters are the consequences of the visa cancellation, but they are not matters that would on their own constitute an overwhelming degree of hardship sufficient to weigh against cancelling the visa.

12. The Tribunal gives the above matters some weight towards the visa not being cancelled.

    Circumstances in which ground of cancellation arose

13. The guidelines indicate that as a general rule, a visa should not be cancelled where the circumstances in which the ground for cancellation arose were beyond the visa holder’s control.

14. The applicant gave evidence as to the circumstances that led to the cancellation of the visa as set out above.

15. Ultimately, the responsibility regarding enrolment rests with the student.

16. The applicant would have been aware that by not being enrolled in a registered course of study, he would be in breach of condition 8202 and that his visa may be cancelled.

17. The primary responsibility of the applicant under the visa is to be enrolled and undertake a registered course at a level appropriate to his visa. The applicant was not enrolled in a registered course at an appropriate level for a period of more than 10 months, which is a long period of time to be in breach of the visa.

18. The Tribunal has considered the applicant’s explanation for why he was not enrolled in a registered course of study for such a long period of time and therefore in breach of condition 8202(2)(a). The Tribunal considers that those circumstances were within his control, and he has not provided a reasonable explanation or details of extenuating circumstances for not being enrolled in a course of study for such a long period of time. The Tribunal gives this matter substantial weight towards the visa being cancelled.

    Past and present behaviour of the visa holder towards the Department

19. According to the Decision Record, the applicant had not responded to the NOICC, but that based on the applicant’s evidence that appears to have occurred by reason of not being aware of the NOICC.

20. The Decision Record confirms that that there was no information before the Department to indicate any matters of significant before the Department that the applicant has not cooperated with the Department and not complied with his obligations.

21. The Tribunal gives this factor marginal weight against the visa being cancelled.

    Whether there would be consequential cancellations under s 140

22. As the cancellation of the visa does not affect the visa of any other person, this matter is not relevant in this application and the Tribunal gives this no weight towards the visa not being cancelled.

    Whether there are mandatory legal consequences, such as whether cancellation would result in the visa holder being unlawful and liable to detention, or whether indefinite detention is a possible consequence of cancellation, or whether there are provisions in the Act which prevent the person from making a valid visa application without the Minister’s intervention

23. If the Tribunal decides to affirm the decision to cancel the visa on these grounds, then the applicant will become an unlawful non-citizen and liable to detention under s 189 and removal under s 198 of the Act if he does not voluntarily depart Australia. Further, pursuant to s 48 of the Act, the applicant will have limited options to apply for further visas in Australia, so he would need to depart Australia and apply from overseas for most types of further visa.

24. Further, if the Tribunal decides to affirm the decision to cancel the Student (Temporary) (Class TU) visa on these grounds, then the cancellation will come within the identified risk factors to make the applicant meet public interest criterion 4013, so if the applicant decides to apply for a new visa from overseas if he has to depart Australia, then that application may not be approved within the next 3 years.

25. The applicant gave evidence that if the visa remained cancelled, he would not return home. He claimed that he would remain in detention pending the outcome of his [permanent] visa application and review. Accordingly, there may be a prospect that he would become unlawful and be subject to detention and potentially deported.

26. However, these are the intended consequences of the legislation when a visa is cancelled on these grounds.

27. The applicant confirmed in evidence that he had brought an application for a [permanent] visa which was unsuccessful and that he believed that it was the subject of an appeal, but his evidence on this matter was unclear. The Tribunal considers that if there are meritorious grounds for his [permanent application], that that application for [a permanent visa] would succeed.

28. Accordingly, the Tribunal gives this factor marginal weight towards the visa not being cancelled.

    Whether Australia has international obligations that would or may be breached as a result of cancelling the applicant’s visa

29. The circumstances of the applicant would not engage Australia’s international obligations.

30. Accordingly, the Tribunal gives this factor no weight towards the visa not being cancelled.

    Whether any international obligations, including non-refoulement and best interests of the children as a primary consideration, would be breached as a result of the cancellation

31. The applicant does not have any children in Australia whose interests would be affected if the visa was cancelled, because their visa would not be consequentially cancelled or otherwise affected.

32. Accordingly, the Tribunal gives this factor no weight towards the visa not being cancelled.

    Whether the cancellation would lead to removal in breach of Australia’s non-refoulement obligations – that is, removing a person to the country where the person faces persecution, death, torture, inhumane or degrading treatment or punishment

33. There is no evidence before the Tribunal that the cancellation would result in a breach of ots non-refoulement obligations.

34. Accordingly based on the applicant’s evidence, the Tribunal is not satisfied that his removal from Australia would lead to non-compliance of Australia’s non-refoulement obligations. The Tribunal gives this factor no weight towards the visa not being cancelled.

    If it’s a permanent visa, whether the former visa holder has strong family, business or other ties in Australia

35. This matter is not relevant in this application as the cancelled visa is a temporary visa and the Tribunal gives this factor no weight towards the visa not being cancelled.

    Any other relevant matters

36. The Tribunal is not aware of any other relevant matters which will impact whether the visa ought to be cancelled.

    Conclusion

37. Considering the circumstances, the Tribunal concludes that the visa should be cancelled.

    DECISION

38. The Tribunal affirms the decision to cancel the applicant’s Class TU visa.

    Michael Biviano

    
    

    Member

    ATTACHMENT

    Migration Regulations 1994

    …

    Schedule 8

    8202(1)      The holder  (other than the holder of a Subclass 560 (Student) visa who is an AusAID student or the holder of a Subclass 576 (AusAID or Defence Sector) visa) must meet the requirements of subclauses (2) and (3).

    (2)A holder meets the requirements of this subclause if:

    (a)     the holder is enrolled in a registered course; or

    (b)     in the case of the holder of a Subclass 560 or 571 (Schools Sector) visa who is a secondary exchange student — the holder is enrolled in a full time course of study or training.

    (3)A holder meets the requirements of this subclause if neither of the following applies:

    (a)     the education provider has certified the holder, for a registered course undertaken by the holder, as not achieving satisfactory course progress for:

    (i)section 19 of the Education Services for Overseas Students Act 2000; and

    (ii)standard 10 of the National Code of Practice for Registration Authorities and Providers of Education and Training to Overseas Students 2007;

    (b)     the education provider has certified the holder, for a registered course undertaken by the holder, as not achieving satisfactory course attendance for:

    (i)section 19 of the Education Services for Overseas Students Act 2000; and

    (ii)standard 11 of the National Code of Practice for Registration Authorities and Providers of Education and Training to Overseas Students 2007

    (4)In the case of the holder of a Subclass 560 visa who is an AusAID student or the holder of a Subclass 576 (AusAID or Defence Sector) visa — the holder is enrolled in a full-time course of study or training.