BOONTHANOM (Migration)

This matter concerned an application for a Student (Temporary) (Class TU) visa, Subclass 500 (Student), by two applicants. The primary applicant sought to satisfy the criteria for the visa, while the second applicant was a member of the family unit. The Administrative Appeals Tribunal, specifically Member D. Shirrefs, was required to determine whether the applicants met the relevant criteria for the grant of the visa.

The central legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the primary applicant was enrolled in a course of study at the time of the decision, as required by clause 500.211(a) of the Migration Regulations 1994. This clause mandates that an applicant must be enrolled in a "full-time registered course," which is further defined by reference to the Education Services for Overseas Students Act 2000. The Tribunal also considered the secondary criteria for family members, which depend on the primary applicant satisfying the primary criteria.

The Tribunal reasoned that the onus was on the applicant to provide sufficient evidence to satisfy the Tribunal that the requirements of the Act and Regulations had been met. In this instance, there was no recent evidence before the Tribunal demonstrating that the primary applicant was enrolled in a course of study as defined by the Regulations. Consequently, the Tribunal could not be satisfied that the primary criteria for a Subclass 500 visa were met. As the primary applicant failed to satisfy the primary criteria, the second applicant, as a member of the family unit, also failed to meet the relevant criteria.

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