Antonopoulou (Migration)

[2017] AATA 1839

Antonopoulou (Migration) [2017] AATA 1839 (26 September 2017)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

APPLICANTS:  Mrs Grigoria Antonopoulou
Mr Dimitrios Antonopoulos
Mr Charilaos Antonopoulos
Miss Ifigenia Antonopoulou

CASE NUMBER:  1514358

DIBP REFERENCE(S):  BCC2015/2291440

MEMBER:Tim Connellan

DATE:26 September 2017

PLACE OF DECISION:  Melbourne

DECISION:The Tribunal affirms the decisions not to grant the applicants Student (Temporary) (Class TU) visas.

Statement made on 26 September 2017 at 10:01am

CATCHWORDS

Migration – Student (Temporary) (Class TU) visa – Subclass 572 Vocational Education and Training Sector – Genuine temporary entrant – Genuine student – Failure to obtain evidence of courses – Lengthy gaps in studies – Limited academic progress – No discernible academic pathway guided by a business plan – Family members’ schooling

LEGISLATION

Migration Act 1958, ss 65, 499

Migration Regulation 1994, Schedule 1, Schedule 2 cl 572.223

STATEMENT OF DECISION AND REASONS

APPLICATION FOR REVIEW

1. This is an application for review of decisions made by a delegate of the Minister for Immigration to refuse to grant the applicants Student (Temporary) (Class TU) visas under s.65 of the Migration Act 1958 (the Act).

2. The applicants applied to the Department of Immigration for the visas on 10 August 2015. The delegate decided to refuse to grant the visas on 19 October 2015. At the time the visa application was lodged, the Student (Temporary) (Class TU) visa contained a number of subclasses: Item 1222 of Schedule 1 to the Migration Regulations 1994 (the Regulations). Generally speaking, the subclass that can be granted 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); for certain applications made on or after 24 March 2012, whether the applicant is an ‘eligible higher degree student’ (Subclass 573 – 574) or ‘eligible university exchange student’ or ‘eligible non-award student’ (Subclass 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).

3. The delegate refused to grant the visas because he was not satisfied the primary applicant, Mrs Antonopoulou satisfied the requirements of cl.572.223 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations because he was not satisfied she intended to stay in Australia temporarily.

4. On 4 January 2017 the Tribunal wrote to the applicants inviting them to appear at a Tribunal hearing scheduled for 7 February 2017 to give evidence and present arguments relating to the issues in their case.

5. When the applicants did not respond to the hearing invitation and did not appear at the scheduled hearing, the Tribunal dismissed the application.

6. Notification of dismissal was sent to Mrs Antonopoulou via email to her migration agent on 8 February 2017 advising that she may apply in writing for reinstatement of the application by 22 February 2017.

7. On 23 February 2017 the applicant’s agent telephoned the Tribunal advising that he had only just seen the dismissal advice and advising that he had changed his email address.

8. On 2 March 2017 the Tribunal was advised of a change in representative to Ms Dimopoulos and on 9 March 2017 received a request that the case be reinstated.

9. The Tribunal reinstated the case on 16 March 2017 and issued an invitation to a further hearing scheduled 11 April 2017.

10. With the hearing invitation Mrs Antonopoulou was invited to provide evidence of current enrolment, documents that showed past studies in Australia and advice that the Tribunal would assess whether she genuinely intended to stay in Australia temporarily. It explained the relevance of Direction No. 53 a copy of which was included. It asked Mrs Antonopoulou to provide a written statement addressing the issues of whether she was a genuine temporary entrant by referring to the decision.

11. On 6 April 2017 the Tribunal received a hearing invitation response indicating Mrs Antonopoulou would attend the hearing. Also provided was a copy of the front page of Direction No. 53 however no statement regarding how she met the temporary entrant criteria or any of the other requested evidence was provided.

12. The primary applicant Mrs Grigoria Antonopoulou and secondary applicant Mr Dimitrios Antonopoulos appeared before the Tribunal on 11 April 2017 to give evidence and present arguments. The Tribunal hearing was conducted with the assistance of an interpreter in the Greek and English languages. 

13. The applicants were represented in relation to the review by their registered migration agent. The representative attended the Tribunal hearing.

14. For the following reasons, the Tribunal has concluded that the decision under review should be affirmed.

    CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE

15. Having regard to Mrs Antonopoulou’s current proposed course of study, the relevant subclass in this case is Subclass 572.

16. The issue in the present case is whether Mrs Antonopoulou meets the time of decision criterion in cl.572.223. Clause 572.223(1)(a) relevantly states:

    (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)     …

17. In considering whether the applicant satisfies this criterion, the Tribunal must have regard to Direction No.53, Assessing the genuine temporary entrant criterion for Student visa applications, made under s.499 of the Act. This Direction requires the Tribunal to have regard to a number of specified factors in relation to:

    ·the applicant’s circumstances in their home country, potential circumstances in Australia, and the value of the course to the applicant’s future;

    ·the applicant’s immigration history, including previous applications for an Australian visa or for visas to other countries, and previous travel to Australia or other countries;

    ·if the applicant is a minor, the intentions of a parent, legal guardian or spouse of the applicant; and

    ·any other relevant information provided by the applicant, or information otherwise available to the decision maker, including information that may be either beneficial or unfavourable to the applicant.

18. The Direction indicates that the factors specified should not be used as a checklist but rather, are intended to guide decision makers to weigh up the applicant’s circumstances as a whole, in reaching a finding about whether the applicant satisfies the genuine temporary entrant criterion.

    The Hearing

    The following is a detailed version of discussions at the hearing. Mrs Antonopoulou frequently provided answers that were obscure and required clarification and even then often were confusing. Many of those answers are recorded verbatim to convey the reasons for confusion..

19. Mrs Antonopoulou told the Tribunal she had read and understood the primary decision a copy of which she had provided with the review application. She said she believed the application was refused because there were times when she was not studying.

20. Reading from the decision, the Tribunal told Mrs Antonopoulou that the delegate having considered her study pattern and behaviour had found she was not a genuine temporary entrant but that she was using the student visa programme to remain resident in Australia.

21. Mrs Antonopoulou told the Tribunal that prior to coming to Australia on 24 January 2012 she had been a housewife and mother to 3 children in Greece. She said her children were now aged 18, 17 and 14 and were all currently here with her in Australia.

22. She said she had come to Australia to get papers which would enable her to put into practice that which she wished to do.

23. When asked to explain, she said it was an activity which relates to how children react with adults, how we look after children, children’s behaviour toward adults so they would be in a position to look after adults, especially older adults.

24. When asked whether her studies would lead to a position that already exists, she responded that she had taken some steps in Greece related to where the children are, and that discussions are taking place with a structure for older people to see how things can develop from here.

25. When asked whether she had done studies of this nature in the past, she stated that after finishing secondary school she got married and was unable to continue her studies so had come to Australia to gain business management type qualifications to get on with it.

26. The Tribunal told her it believed her stated aim of gaining qualifications about how children react with adults, how to care for children and understand their behaviour towards adults and the study and training of how children can look after older adults involved subjects taught across a range of courses and disciplines.

27. The Tribunal asked Mrs Antonopoulou the purpose of studies and what she believed would be her future professional involvement in this procedure. She responded that she wanted to know and understand the context of the area so she could manage it the best way possible and then to start working in the area of care.

28. The Tribunal asked what role she saw herself playing and therefore what skill sets she required to learn. It asked whether she saw herself working in Child Care, Child Education, Aged Care, all of those or something else? She responded that her principal interest was working with children. When asked to expand, she responded saying not exactly a kindergarten, but she would like to create a place where children could learn to build things, learn how to behave with older people and to create a feeling of teamwork. She said she wished to work with children from the age of 5 to teenage years.

29. In response to the Tribunal’s question as to whether she intended running a school she said it would be an after-school program.

30. Mrs Antonopoulou told the Tribunal her husband was a welder.

31. Mrs Antonopoulou told the Tribunal she initially came to Australia to learn to speak English.

32. When asked what study she had done, she said that in Greece she had done diplomas in the use of computers and one in economic circumstances.

33. The Tribunal reminded Mrs Antonopoulou that with the hearing invitation she had been asked to provide evidence of study she had done in Australia and noted she had not responded. It told Mrs Antonopoulou it was keen to know what study she had done in Australia.

34. The Tribunal noted she had provided a Certificate IV in EAL and asked whether this was the only study she had completed. She stated she had already completed a Certificate I and a Certificate II in ESL but the College had not provided her with the certificates despite her having requested them to do so more than 12 months ago.

35. She said she had enrolled in another school but they were asking a lot of money to do so.

36. The Tribunal told Mrs Antonopoulou it was keen to see evidence of studies in Australia which it noted was a significant issue in the primary decision. It asked whether she had any other evidence of studies. She said Barkly College had her certificates and they were not in her possession despite the fact she had asked for them. She said she believed she had studied these courses between September and November 2013 but could not remember exactly.

37. She said that she first enrolled in Barkly College in September 2012 and completed a Certificate 2 immediately after completing Certificate I. When the Tribunal asked when she had first commenced studying she said May 2012. The Tribunal was frustrated with her responses and told her it was simply trying to establish a reliable chronology of her studies in Australia.

38. She said that with the first course she had been put into the wrong level as the school had misunderstood her level of English. She was then put in course number one and from there she had just progressed normally. She said course one lasted three or four months and that she had commenced course number two some two or three weeks after completing course number one. She said course number two lasted for five or six months. She said “of course there were holidays”. When asked when she finished the second course, she said she thought it must have been October or possibly November 2013.

39. The Tribunal observed that if she had started the first course in May 2012 and it lasted up to 4 months it would have been completed by September 2012. If a couple of weeks later she had started a six-month course it would have been completed by April or May 2013.

40. She responded that as she had explained earlier, she had started in May 2012 but due to a mistake by the college they had put her in a course that was too advanced and so she had been put into a new course that had commenced in September.

41. The Tribunal questioned why it had taken five months to work out she was in the wrong class. She responded that it was a different school. The Tribunal noted there was no evidence of the studies to which she referred.

42. The Tribunal noted that the primary decision stated she had not undertaken any studies between 14 September 2013 and 14 November 2014 and when the department had invited comment she had failed to respond. The Tribunal asked why she had not responded to the Department and whether she would provide a response to the same question put by the Tribunal.

43. She responded that firstly her agent had not made her aware of this study gap, only advising her that she had a study gap after the cancellation had taken place. The agent had told her she should pack her bags and leave the country.

44. The Tribunal suggested it shouldn’t take an agent to notify her that she had a study gap and the primary decision says she was not studying during that period. The Tribunal asked what she was doing during that time.

45. She responded that she had been studying during that time.

46. Her agent stated that Mrs Antonopoulou had advised her that she enrolled in a course in March 2014 in response to a call from the Department regarding her attendance at school and she studied from March until November 2014, meaning that the only study gap was from September 2013 to March 2014.

47. The Tribunal asked whether there was any evidence of her having done the studies as claimed between March and November 2014. The Tribunal stated it required other than a CoE which of itself was not evidence of attendance. It asked whether there were any academic transcripts or attendance certificates.

48. Mrs Antonopoulou responded saying there weren’t any signatures about those sorts of things, there were times when it would appear that there were some things written down and on other occasions it would appear that nothing was written down at all. She said she had put her name down many times when her name did not appear on the list.

49. She told the Tribunal she did not have any evidence other than the CoE of having done studies during that period at the particular school. The Tribunal repeated that a CoE was not evidence of an applicant having done studies. However, the Tribunal stated that even if it accepted the CoE as evidence of her having studied for the duration of the course, it would mean that the study gap was not 14 months but a period greater than six months, from 14 September 2013 until 24 March 2014.

50. Mrs Antonopoulou responded that she was contacted by the school, the Immigration Department by the telephone as a result of which she sent them that material.

51. The Tribunal asked whether she had obtained the enrolment following being asked by the Department why she was not studying. She responded that was not the case but that she had chosen not to continue with that school because they were asking for a very large sum of money and at that time she did not have the economic strength to pay for those sort of things. She said she then contacted the school and found out there was the possibility of applying for some sort of assistance given that the sums involved were large.

52. She said the first school she went to was Ithea. She had been to 3 schools previously and her current school was the fourth. Her previous education providers had been Ithea, Barkly College and Southern Cross.

53. She said it was at Ithea that she was put in a class that she should not have been in following which she had gone to Barkly College which was the school that asked for large sums of money to continue and asked that enrolment take place every six months.

54. The Tribunal told Mrs Antonopoulou It was concerned that she was unable to provide any evidence to support her stories.

55. The Tribunal asked Mrs Antonopoulou why she wished to study her intended courses. She responded that she wanted to get pieces of paper that showed she had the qualifications necessary to start a business along the lines discussed at the beginning of the hearing.

56. The Tribunal asked whether she held any teaching or childcare qualifications and how her intended courses would provide her with the qualifications that would enable her to open what amounted to an after-hours school.  She responded that she did not have any teaching or childcare qualifications but they were qualifications she was thinking of getting. When asked to expand, she stated that once she had started the business she would go and get those qualifications. The Tribunal told Mrs Antonopoulou it believed that process did not make sense.

57. The Tribunal told Mrs Antonopoulou it did not believe that a Certificate IV in Business was an adequate qualification to open a childcare/school however, if Mrs Antonopoulou believed that such a four-month course was sufficient, then that was her belief.

58. When asked how many students the business would cater for, she said 15 to 20. When asked how many staff would be required to run such a business, she said in the beginning it would be two or three and of course the person who cooks. When the Tribunal asked for clarification, she said she was talking about afternoon tea so students were in a position to be able to learn properly. She said she did not know how it works here but she was talking about situations that were similar to the all-day schools that exist in Greece.

59. She said she did not want to distract students from the reading and study they had to do at school but schools in Greece finish at midday or so.

60. When asked whether the premises for her proposed business would need to be purpose-built, she responded that she would simply obtain a building in Greece. She said she didn’t know how things are here in Australia. She said in Greece it was not necessary to have your own establishment to be able to set up a business it was sufficient that it was within the specifications for that line of activities.

61. Asked how much it would cost to establish the business, Mrs Antonopoulou responded that she needed to talk about the rent and the articles to be contained within it so she was talking about between ten to fifteen thousand.

62. When asked why she did not do these studies in Greece she said she believed education in this particular field in Australia was much better.

63. The Tribunal suggested that given she was looking to establish a business in Greece it would be more appropriate to do the studies in Greece rather than a four-month business course in Australia.

64. She said she was not just focusing on the business itself but it also makes you aware of the context in which businesses of this type are active here and she believes the situation is much better organised in this respect in Australia. She said she was not doing it just for the business but for the diploma as well. When the Tribunal asked her to repeat what she meant, she said she had put in her papers. The Tribunal observed that she had provided a CoE for a Diploma of Leadership and Management, previously a Diploma of Management a short inexpensive course at the vocational education and training sector level.

1. The Tribunal asked her to confirm that it was her intention to open what was effectively a childcare facility without having done any studies in the childcare sector. She said she wished to study behavioural elements and yet was not proposing to do any studies that would provide expertise in that field.

2. The Tribunal told Mrs Antonopoulou it questioned how a four-month Diploma of Business and a 12-month Diploma of Leadership and Management adequately equipped her to achieve her stated aims and plans.

3. She said she lived in Noble Park with her husband and children and that her eldest son was finishing year 12 this year. They had lived in Noble Park for the last few months prior to which they lived with her married sister in Clayton. Her sister had been in Australia since 2013. When asked whether her sister was an Australian citizen, she responded that it would be reasonable to imagine that she had obtained Australian citizenship given she was married to an Australian. The Tribunal told Mrs Antonopoulou it was not prepared to imagine anything but was asking her whether her sister was an Australian citizen. She said her sister was in Australia and a citizen.

4. When asked whether she had other family living in Australia, she said she had another sister who was married with three children also living in Australia, in the Clayton South area.

5. Mrs Antonopoulou’s agent told the Tribunal that Mrs Antonopoulou’s original agent had not addressed the issues when Mrs Antonopoulou had originally been asked to comment on her study gap. The delegate’s subsequent finding of an unexplained 14 months study gap was of concern because her client had been enrolled in a course during that time and she believed the study gap was only six months. She said she would appreciate the opportunity to provide evidence from the school that she had been studying during the period in question.

6. She also asked for opportunity to provide evidence of studies she had completed.

7. She said Mrs Antonopoulou had been in Greece between November 2014 and June 2015. The Tribunal told the agent it accepted that Mrs Antonopoulou’s student visa had expired on 14 November 2014 and on that day she had returned to Greece. While in Greece she applied for and was granted a subclass 601 electronic visitor visa on which she returned and subsequently applied for a student visa. She had been in Australia on student visas for approximately 32 months.

8. The agent said it was Mrs Antonopoulou’s intention to apply for a new student visa before her previous visa expired however there was evidence available that they had goods including passports and papers stolen from a locker at Balaclava station and one of the reasons they returned to Greece was to get new passports and documentation.

9. The Tribunal told Mrs Antonopoulou it was still of concern that there had been a six month study gap, the agent told the Tribunal that as had previously been discussed with the department at that time they were going through financial difficulties.

10. The agent stated her instructions were that having completed the business course Mrs Antonopoulou planned to do some studies in childcare.

11. The Tribunal asked Mrs Antonopoulou whether she had made any enquiries about Childcare studies and whether she knew what such courses cost. The Tribunal told Mrs Antonopoulou it believed that courses in early childhood development were likely to be expensive and while it would make sense for her to do such studies given her stated plans, there is no evidence before the Tribunal that she has such study plans. Evidence before the Tribunal was that she wished to stay in Australia until the end of 2018 which means she would have been in Australia for a period in excess of six years without having done any studies in Childcare or Teaching.

12. The agent said that while she believed childcare was a long-term plan this application was to enable her to study a course in Leadership and Management.

13. The agent asked if they could be given time provide evidence of studies.

14. The Tribunal told Mrs Antonopoulou it had serious concerns about issues in her case however would not make a decision immediately and would give her the opportunity to provide further evidence. 

15. Mrs Antonopoulou and her agent said there was nothing further.

16. Post hearing the Tribunal received Certificates from Barkly College stating Mrs Antonopoulou had completed a Certificate I and a Certificate II in ESL. The documents had been issued on 20^th and 25^th August 2015 respectively. Also provided was a Confirmation of Studies document from Southern Cross Education Institute stating Mrs Antonopoulou was enrolled in a Certificate III in EAL between 24 March 2014 and 6 October 2014. It stated she was involved in most of the classes but was put on an intervention plan due to poor progress.

    Consideration

17. Mrs Antonopoulou came to Australia in 24 January 2012 as the holder of a subclass 976 (Electronic Travel Authority – Visitor) visa current to 24 April 2012.

18. While onshore as a visitor she applied for her first student visa which was granted on 20 April 2012 and was current until 10 September 2012.

19. On 18 September 2012 she was granted another 570 visa to study a Certificate I, II, III and IV in English as a Second Language (ESL).

20. With this application lodged 10 August 2015 the applicant provided Confirmations of Enrolment CoE’s in courses past their completion dates:

    ·     Certificate IV in EAL (11/08/2015 - 12/01/2016) Course fees: $4000

    ·     Certificate III in Business (13/01/2016 - 04/05/2016) Course fees: $2000

    ·     Certificate IV in Business (05/05/2016 - 25/08/2016) Course fees: $2000.

    The enrolments had been obtained on 10/08/2015, the date of the application.

21. Having considered the primary applicant’s academic progress, her study history, potential circumstances in Australia, immigration history and the lack of value of the courses to her future, the delegate refused the application as he was not satisfied she was a genuine applicant for entry and stay as a student and that she intended to stay in Australia temporarily.

22. The decision for the Tribunal is whether Mrs Antonopoulou is a genuine applicant for entry and stay as a student and therefore satisfies clause 572.223.

23. In considering the issues in the case, the Tribunal has had regard to the issues in Ministerial Direction No. 53.

24. Mrs Antonopoulou told the Tribunal that having completed secondary school, she got married and had children and had done no further studies. Her eldest son who is with her here in Australia completing year 12 is 18 years of age.

25. Mrs Antonopoulou has provided evidence of the following studies in Australia

    ·     Certificate I in ESL           15/09/2012 – 14/03/2103 (Completed)

    ·     Certificate II in ESL          14/04/2013 – 14/10/2013 (Completed)

    ·     Certificate IV in ESL         24/03/2014 – 6/10/2014 (Incomplete)

    (The notification from Southern Cross Education Institute, the education provider, stated she had been enrolled in the course, was involved in most of the classes but was put on an intervention plan due to poor progress.)

26. From her evidence, in over 5 years in Australia as the holder of student visas or associated bridging visas, Mrs Antonopoulou has successfully completed courses that have run for one year. The Tribunal does not consider this the progress of a genuine student.

27. With this application she lodged CoE’s for 3 further courses, however despite the fact Mrs Antonopoulou held visas allowing her to study she has not completed any of these courses. The Tribunal does not believe this is the behaviour of a genuine student. She told the Tribunal she wished to study a Diploma of Leadership and Management.

28. As mentioned earlier, the Tribunal was often frustrated by the fact that Mrs Antonopoulou often provided answers that were verbose, arcane and cryptic.

29. She claimed she wanted to gain qualifications that would enable her to open a business operating a programme for children from the age of 5 to teenage years.

30. It was unclear whether the program she had in mind already existed, but when asked to explain its operation she stated  the program was aimed at learning how to look after children, by understanding their behaviour, particularly with regards to how they relate to adults, and how they could subsequently look after adults, particularly older adults.

31. Mrs Antonopoulou provided no satisfactory answer to the question of whether the business was one of childcare, education or aged care, or a combination of all three.

32. Mrs Antonopoulou told the Tribunal she had no qualifications in education or childcare.

33. Mrs Antonopoulou was unable to provide specific details regarding the day-to-day operations, the premises from which it would be run, the number of staff required or the costs involved in establishing and running such a business.

34. Mrs Antonopoulou provided no satisfactory answer when questioned whether she believed short inexpensive courses in Certificate III and IV in Business were adequate preparation for the establishment of such a business, other than to say she thought she may gain education and childcare qualifications once she had opened the business.

35. The Tribunal does not believe that Mrs Antonopoulou’s intended courses are relevant to, or would equip her to open the sort of business she claims to wish to open and operate.

100.   The tribunal does not believe Mrs Antonopoulou is following an academic pathway guided by a business plan but rather she is enrolling in unrelated courses in an attempt to maintain residence in Australia.

101.   Despite it having been a significant issue in the primary decision, Mrs Antonopoulou failed to provide any satisfactory explanation of significant gaps in her enrolments while on a student visa. For example she had been granted a student visa on 20 April 2012 however her first evidence of study is of a Certificate I in ESL at Barkly International College which she commenced on the 15 September 2012. Mrs Antonopoulou claimed that before Barkly she had previously studied at another college, however despite being given time post hearing to do so, she failed to provide any evidence of such studies.

102.   Having completed the certificate two in ESL on 14 October 2013 there was a further study gap until 24 March 2014.

103.   Mrs Antonopoulou told the Tribunal she has family in Australia including a sister who is an Australian citizen and with whom she and her family resided for some time.

104.   She also told the Tribunal her eldest son is completing year 12 and other two children are at school in Australia. The Tribunal believes the children’s education provides a strong incentive for Mrs Antonopoulou and her family to remain in Australia.

105.   Mrs Antonopoulou told the Tribunal she came to Australia to learn English. Having studied English and having been here for over five years, she now seeks to remain longer to study courses other than English.

106.   The Tribunal believes her circumstances of being in Australia with her immediate family as well as some members of her extended family also present as a strong incentive for her to remain in Australia and does not believe she has provided evidence of any incentive to return which outweighs the issues discussed and her immigration history

107.   Mrs Antonopoulou lodged this visa application on 10 August 2015, on the same day she arranged enrolments in her intended courses. The timing of this behaviour leads the Tribunal to find that your motivation for the enrolments was for the purposes of gaining a visa rather than a genuine intention to study.

108.   On the basis of the above, and having considered Mrs Antonopoulou’s circumstances, immigration history, and other matters it considers relevant, the Tribunal is not satisfied that she intends genuinely to stay in Australia temporarily. Accordingly, she does not meet cl.572.223(1)(a).

109.   The Tribunal has found Mrs Antonopoulou does not meet an essential requirement of cl.572.223. With the exception of Subclass 580, the other subclasses within visa Class TU all contain an identical requirement. For reasons given above, the Tribunal also finds that Mrs Antonopoulou does not meet the requirements of these subclasses. In respect of Subclass 580 (Student Guardian) visa, there is no material before the Tribunal that suggests Mrs Antonopoulou meets the prescribed criteria for that subclass. As the Tribunal has found that Mrs Antonopoulou does not meet a criterion for the grant of a student visa, it must affirm the decision under review.

110.   The applications of the secondary applicants were dependent on that of the primary applicant, and were made on no other basis. Having found that the primary visa applicant does not meet the essential criteria referred to above, the secondary applicant's applications must also be affirmed.

DECISION

111.   The Tribunal affirms the decisions not to grant the applicants Student (Temporary) (Class TU) visas.

Tim Connellan
Member