Amandeep Singh (Migration)

This matter concerned an appeal by Amandeep Singh and his spouse against the refusal of their applications for a Subclass 500 (Student) visa. The applicants, who had resided in Australia for a significant period, sought to undertake further study in Australia. The first applicant, a 34-year-old national of India, had previously completed various vocational and academic qualifications in Australia and India, and was employed as an Uber driver at the time of his application. His spouse had also completed postgraduate studies in Australia. The applicants' child was born in Australia.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the first applicant was enrolled in a course of study at the time of the decision, as required by clause 500.211 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994, and if so, whether he was a genuine applicant for entry and stay as a student under clause 500.212(a). The court also considered whether the second and third applicants met the relevant criteria under clause 500.311. The applicants had been invited to provide information and evidence regarding their enrolment and genuine student status, particularly in light of a PRISMS search, but failed to respond.

The court's reasoning focused on the information obtained from the PRISMS search, which indicated that the first applicant had a history of multiple course enrolments and cancellations, often for non-commencement of studies. Crucially, the search revealed that at the time of the decision, the first applicant was not enrolled in any course, and his most recent enrolments had been cancelled shortly after notification of the visa refusal. The court found that the applicants had been given ample opportunity to provide evidence to the contrary but had not done so. Consequently, the court was not satisfied that the first applicant met the enrolment criterion under clause 500.211.

Given the failure to satisfy the enrolment criterion, the court concluded that the applicants did not meet the requirements for the grant of a Subclass 500 (Student) visa. As the applicants did not claim to meet the criteria for a Subclass 590 (Student Guardian) visa, the decision under review to refuse the visas was affirmed.