Bath (Migration)

[2024] AATA 515

Bath (Migration) [2024] AATA 515 (8 March 2024)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

APPLICANT:  Mr Harjinder Singh Bath

CASE NUMBER:  2314160

HOME AFFAIRS REFERENCE(S):          BCC2022/654023

MEMBER:Wendy Banfield

DATE:8 March 2024

PLACE OF DECISION:  Canberra

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

Statement made on 08 March 2024 at 12:14pm

CATCHWORDS
MIGRATION – Student (Temporary) (Class TU) visa – Subclass 500 (Student) – genuine temporary entrant – no current enrolment in registered course – no response to invitation to comment on information – decision under review affirmed

LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss 65, 359A
Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth), r 1.03, Schedule 2, cls 500.111, 500.211(a), 500.212

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 11 September 2023 to refuse to grant the applicant a Student (Temporary) (Class TU) visa under s 65 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (the Act).

2. The applicant applied for the visa on 15 March 2022. 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 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 (Cth) (the Regulations) because the applicant was not a genuine applicant for entry and stay as a student. For the reasons explained below, the issue now before the Tribunal is whether the applicant is enrolled in a course of study as required by cl 500.211(a).

4. On 14 September 2023 the Tribunal wrote to the applicant requesting a copy of a current Certificate of Enrolment (CoE) as required for the grant of a student visa. He was asked to provide the information by 28 September 2023.

5. On 15 September 2023 the applicant replied to the request:

   Thank you for requesting more information. I am waiting for the new Coe. Please proceed with the application. I will keep updating the portal. Thank you.

6. On 21 September 2023 the applicant provided a further response:

   Good afternoon. My name is harjinder singh bath.  This is the response to your request of Conformation of enrolment. I am still waiting for my COE. I can not provide at the moment. I will upload as soon I get one. Please proceed with the application. Thanks Regards, harjinder singh bath.

7. On 21 September 2023 the Tribunal wrote to the applicant stating that in order to assist the Tribunal to process the application for review in a timely fashion, could he please provide a copy of a current Certificate of Enrolment (CoE) as required for the grant of a student visa as soon as possible. The applicant did not respond to the request.

8. On 29 January 2024, the Tribunal accessed the review applicant’s record on the Provider Registration and International Student Management System register (PRISMS). The purpose of this search was to ascertain whether the review applicant was enrolled in a registered course of study, as required by cl 500.211(a), because there was insufficient evidence currently before the Tribunal about this. The PRISMS search showed that the review applicant did not hold a current Confirmation of Enrolment (CoE) in a registered course of study.

9. On 23 February 2024 the Tribunal wrote to the review applicant pursuant to s 359A of the Act, inviting the review applicant to provide comments on information that it considered would be part of the reason for affirming the decision under review in writing. The particulars of the information were that the review applicant’s PRISMS record showed that they did not hold a current CoE, which may lead the Tribunal to conclude that the review applicant was not currently enrolled in a registered course of study and did not meet cl 500.211(a).

10. The review applicant did not provide their comments or response and the Tribunal has proceeded to making its decision without taking any further steps to obtain them. On 8 March 2024 the Tribunal again accessed the review applicant’s record on PRISMS to check the status of his enrolment at the date of decision. The PRISMS search showed that the review applicant does not hold a current CoE in a registered course of study.

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

    CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE

12. 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 full-time registered course, and therefore a course of study, as required by cl 500.211(a).

    Enrolment (cl 500.211)

13. 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.

14. ‘Course of study’ is relevantly defined in cl 500.111 of the Regulations as a ‘full-time registered course’. ‘Registered course’ is defined in reg 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 (ESOS Act), to provide the course to overseas students.

15. 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 the 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 ESOS Act. 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 enrolments 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.

16. 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. 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. There is no such evidence in this case.

17. The Tribunal accessed the PRISMS record on 29 January and 8 March 2024 which showed that the review applicant does not hold a current CoE in a registered course of study. Although the applicant claimed on 15 and 21 September 2023 that he was “waiting for” a CoE, he did not provide evidence of having obtained one. The applicant did not respond to an invitation to comment on the PRISMS record showing he does not hold a current CoE.

18. 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.

    DECISION

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

    Wendy Banfield
    Member