BUI (Migration)

This matter concerned an application for a Student (Temporary) (Class TU) visa, subclass 500, by an applicant who failed to provide evidence of English language proficiency. The Administrative Appeals Tribunal, constituted by Senior Member P. Wood, was required to determine whether the applicant met the criteria for the visa.

The central legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicant satisfied clause 500.213 of the Migration Regulations 1994, which mandates the provision of evidence of English language proficiency unless the applicant falls within an exempted class. The Tribunal had to consider the requirements specified in IMMI 18/015, the relevant legislative instrument, and assess whether the applicant's claims of poor advice and reliance on a government risk assessment document excused this failure.

The Tribunal reasoned that to meet clause 500.213, an applicant must provide evidence of English language proficiency as specified in IMMI 18/015, unless they belong to a class of persons exempted by the regulations. The applicant had been required to provide such evidence but failed to do so, both to the original decision-maker and to the Tribunal. While the applicant and their migration agent raised issues of poor advice and a risk assessment document, the Tribunal found that these did not negate the requirement to comply with IMMI 18/015. The evidence presented did not establish the required English language proficiency, nor did it demonstrate that the applicant belonged to any of the exempted categories outlined in the instrument.

Consequently, the Tribunal was not satisfied that the applicant met clause 500.213. The Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicant the Student (Temporary) visa.