Bang (Migration)

This matter concerned an application for a Student (Temporary) (Class TU) visa, Subclass 500, by a 33-year-old South Korean national. The applicant had previously held various visas, including student, bridging, and working holiday visas. The core dispute revolved around whether the applicant met the criteria for a genuine temporary entry as a student, specifically concerning their enrolment in a registered course of study.

The Tribunal was required to determine whether the applicant satisfied the primary criteria for a Subclass 500 visa, as set out in Schedule 2 of the Regulations. The central legal issue was whether the applicant was enrolled in a full-time registered course of study at the time of the decision, as mandated by clause 500.211(a) of the Regulations. The Tribunal also considered the role and reliability of the Provider Registration and International Student Management System (PRISMS) in verifying student enrolments.

The Tribunal reasoned that clause 500.211(a) requires an applicant to be enrolled in a full-time registered course at the time of the decision. It noted that PRISMS is a computer system maintained by the Department of Education, Skills and Employment, used in conjunction with the Department of Home Affairs, to record information about accepted overseas students and to issue Confirmation of Enrolment (COE) as evidence of enrolment. The Tribunal accepted PRISMS as a reliable record of enrolments in the absence of evidence to the contrary. In this case, the PRISMS records indicated that the applicant was not enrolled in a registered course, and there was no evidence presented to challenge this information. Consequently, the Tribunal found that the applicant did not meet the enrolment criterion.

Accordingly, the Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicant a Student (Temporary) (Class TU) visa, Subclass 500, as the criteria for the visa grant were not met.