Anugu (Migration)

[2019] AATA 3520

Anugu (Migration) [2019] AATA 3520 (14 August 2019)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

APPLICANT:  Mr Sripal Reddy Anugu

CASE NUMBER:  1807093

HOME AFFAIRS REFERENCE(S):           BCC2017/4883573

MEMBER:Peter Haag

DATE:14 August 2019

PLACE OF DECISION:  Melbourne

DECISION:The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicant a Student (Temporary) (Class TU) visa.

Statement made on 14 August 2019 at 11:28am

CATCHWORDS
MIGRATION – Student (Temporary) (Class TU) visa – Subclass 500 (Student) – no response to s 359 invitation – not entitled to appear before the Tribunal – genuine temporary entrant – enrolment status – not enrolled in a course of study at time of decision – decision under review affirmed

LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss 65, 359C, 360, 363A
Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth), Schedule 2, cls 500.211, 500.212

CASES
Hasran v MIAC [2010] FCAFC 40

STATEMENT OF DECISION AND REASONS

APPLICATION FOR REVIEW

1. This is an application for review of a decision made by a delegate of the Minister for Home Affairs on 24 February 2018 to refuse to grant the applicant a Student (Temporary) (Class TU) visa under s.65 of the Migration Act 1958 (the Act).

2. The applicant applied for the visa on 20 December 2017. At the time of application, Class TU contained two subclasses: Subclass 500 (Student) and Subclass 590 (Student Guardian). The applicant applied for the visa to undertake study in Australia and does not claim to meet the criteria for a Subclass 590 (Student Guardian) visa.

3. The delegate in this case refused to grant the visa on the basis that the applicant did not satisfy the requirements of cl.500.212 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994 (the Regulations) because the delegate was not satisfied the applicant intends genuinely to stay temporarily in Australia.

4. The applicant was assisted in relation to the review by his registered migration agent.

5. On 14 May 2019 the Tribunal wrote to the applicant pursuant to s.359(2) of the Act, inviting him to provide information in writing about the Student visa, including information about the course or courses of study the applicant is undertaking and the applicant’s entry and stay in Australia as a student. The invitation was sent to the applicant’s registered migration agent, and advised that, if the information was not provided in writing by the prescribed period, being 28 May 2019, or within any extended time as requested and granted, the Tribunal may make a decision on the review without taking further steps to obtain the information and the applicant would lose any entitlement he might otherwise have had under the Act to appear before the Tribunal to give evidence and present arguments.

6. The review applicant did not provide the information within the prescribed period and no extension of time was requested. In these circumstances, s.359C applies and pursuant to s.360(3) the review applicant is not entitled to appear before the Tribunal. The effect of s.363A of the Act is that if a review applicant has no entitlement to a hearing, the Tribunal has no power to permit him or her to appear: Hasran v MIAC [2010] FCAFC 40. The Tribunal has decided to proceed to a decision without taking further steps to obtain the information.

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

   CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE

8. The criteria for a Subclass 500 (Student) visa are set out in Part 500 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations. The primary criteria in cl.500.211 to cl.500.218 must be satisfied by at least one applicant. Other members of the family unit, if any, who are applicants for the visa need only satisfy the secondary criteria. The issue in the present case is whether the applicant is enrolled in a registered course of study at the time of this decision.

9. Clause 500.211 relevantly requires that at the time of this decision the applicant is enrolled in a course of study: cl.500.211(a). The applicant does not claim to meet any of the alternative criteria in cl.500.211.

10. ‘Course of study’ is relevantly defined in cl.500.111 of the Regulations as a ‘full-time registered course’. ‘Registered course’ is defined in r.1.03 of the Regulations as a course of education or training provided by an institution, body or person that is registered, under Division 3 of Part 2 of the Education Services for Overseas Students Act 2000, to provide the course to overseas students.

11. The Tribunal has considered the contents of the Department of Immigration and Border Protection (the Department) file and the Tribunal file. The Department file contains no documentary evidence, such as a Confirmation of Enrolment document, in support of his claim that at the time he lodged his application for a Student visa on 20 December 2017, he was enrolled in a course of study. The Department file contains no evidence of the applicant being enrolled currently in a course of study.

12. The applicant did not provide to the Tribunal any evidence of his enrolment in a course of study. The Tribunal file contains no evidence of the applicant being currently enrolled in a registered course of study.

13. Therefore, the Tribunal is not satisfied that at the time of this decision, the applicant is enrolled in a course of study and accordingly cl.500.211 is not met.

14. Given the above findings, the Tribunal finds that the criteria for the grant of a Subclass 500 (Student) visa are not met. The applicant does not claim to meet the criteria for a Subclass 590 (Student Guardian) visa. Accordingly, the decision under review must be affirmed.

    DECISION

15. The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicant a Student (Temporary) (Class TU) visa.

    Peter Haag
    Member