Boonlert (Migration)

This matter concerned an application for a Student (Temporary) (Class TU) visa, subclass 500, made by two applicants. The decision under review affirmed the refusal of these visas. The Tribunal, presided over by Member Wendy Banfield, was tasked with determining whether the applicants met the criteria for the grant of the visa.

The central legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicants satisfied the English language proficiency requirements stipulated by clause 500.213 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations. This clause requires applicants, if requested by the Minister, to provide evidence of their English language proficiency as specified in an instrument, unless they fall within a class of applicants exempted by such an instrument. The Tribunal also considered the implications for a secondary applicant if the primary applicant failed to meet the essential criteria.

The Tribunal reasoned that the applicants were required to provide evidence of English language proficiency under clause 500.213(1) as they did not belong to any of the specified exempt classes outlined in IMMI 16/019. The decision record indicated that the evidence of English language ability previously provided by the applicants did not meet the requirements for their enrolled courses. Despite an invitation to attend a hearing and provide further evidence, the applicants failed to attend or contact the Tribunal, and no satisfactory evidence of English language ability was subsequently submitted. Consequently, the Tribunal was not satisfied that the primary applicant met clause 500.213. As the primary applicant did not satisfy the primary criteria, the secondary applicant, who was a member of the family unit and made a combined application, could not satisfy the criteria either.

Accordingly, the Tribunal affirmed the decisions not to grant the applicants the Student (Temporary) (Class TU) visas.