Butt (Migration)

[2020] AATA 4310

Butt (Migration) [2020] AATA 4310 (7 September 2020)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

APPLICANT:  Mr Muhammad Muaaz Butt

CASE NUMBER:  1804068

HOME AFFAIRS REFERENCE(S):          BCC2017/4639130

MEMBER:Wendy Banfield

DATE:7 September 2020

PLACE OF DECISION:  Sydney

DECISION:The Tribunal affirms the decision to cancel the applicant’s Class TU visa.

Statement made on 07 September 2020 at 3:29pm

CATCHWORDS
MIGRATION – cancellation – Student (Temporary) (Class TU) visa – Subclass 500 (Student) – ground for cancellation – enrolment – not enrolled at the required AQF level – consideration of discretion – length of non-compliance – no compelling need to remain in Australia – fundamental breach of a student visa – difficulties experienced – not beyond the applicant’s control – decision under review affirmed

LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958 (Cth), s 116

Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth), Schedule 8, Condition 8202

STATEMENT OF DECISION AND REASONS

APPLICATION FOR REVIEW

1. This is an application for review of a decision dated 12 February 2018 made by a delegate of the Minister for Home Affairs to cancel the applicant’s Subclass 500 (Student) visa under s.116(1)(b) of the Migration Act 1958 (the Act).

2. The delegate cancelled the visa on the basis that the applicant did not comply with subclause (2)(b) of condition 8202 attached to his visa. The Student visa was granted in relation to the registered courses Intensive Program from 23 October 2017 to 23 February 2018 and Bachelor of Arts (Psychology) from 26 February 2018 to 31 December 2020, a Level 7 qualification from the Australian Qualifications Framework (AQF). Both those enrolments were cancelled, and the applicant did not re-enrol in a course at the same level. Therefore, the applicant did not comply with subclause (2)(b) of condition 8202 as he did not maintain enrolment in a registered course at the same level as, or higher level than, the registered course in relation to which her visa was granted.

   Background

3. The applicant is a citizen of Pakistan and is currently 22 years old. He came to Australia on 14 October 2017 as the holder of a Subclass 500 Student visa to study a bachelor’s degree. The applicant’s enrolment in an Intensive Program and Bachelor of Arts (Psychology) at Macquarie University were cancelled on 8 December 2017.

4. The applicant appeared before the Tribunal on 24 October 2019 and 21 July 2020 to give evidence and present arguments. The Tribunal hearing was conducted with the assistance of an interpreter in the Urdu (Pakistan) and English languages.

5. The applicant was represented in relation to the review by his registered migration agent.

   First hearing – 24 October 2019

6. The Tribunal discussed the evidence the applicant provided in support of his application for review including the Department’s decision and a submission by the representative. The applicant indicated he had provided all the evidence he wished to rely on. The applicant was then advised that the Tribunal would be considering whether there were grounds to cancel the visa and would then assess the discretionary grounds for cancellation. The grounds for cancellation were also explained to the applicant, specifically that he had not maintained enrolment in a course at the same level as, or higher level than, the registered course in relation to which her visa was granted.

7. The applicant indicated he agreed there were grounds for cancellation but said he disagreed with the decision in his case. He said he understood the diploma course he had enrolled in would lead to a bachelor’s degree. The applicant confirmed his date of birth as 17 July 1998 and his home country is Pakistan. He agreed he was granted a Student visa 23 October 2017 based on enrolment in two courses at Macquarie University, an Intensive Program and a Bachelor of Arts (Psychology). The applicant also agreed he had received a Notice of Intention to Consider Cancellation (NOICC) on 29 January 2018 to which he had responded.

8. The applicant was invited to comment on the circumstances in which the grounds for cancellation arose. He said he came to Australia to study a bachelor’s degree at Macquarie University. According to the applicant he moved in with someone who had already enrolled in the same degree and that person advised him it would be very difficult, and he should consider accounting. At the same time the applicant claimed he was homesick and very stressed and had visited a psychologist. He submitted he did not know about the AQS levels and he only learnt about it after his visa was cancelled. He said he obtained a COE for an Advanced Diploma of Accounting but had made the mistake of not getting a COE for a bachelor’s degree. In addition, the applicant said he did not tell his family about his mistake until his visa was cancelled. The Tribunal asked the applicant whether he had attended any classes for the Intensive Program at Macquarie, and he said he had not. The applicant claimed this was because his friend with whom he was sharing accommodation told him it would be “very tough” and he should do accounting instead.

9. The applicant confirmed he enrolled in an Advanced Diploma of Accounting on 16 November 2017 even though he had been due to start the Intensive Program on 23 October 2017. He indicated the advice from his friend was the only reason he changed his enrolment but then said he was had also been sick and referred to medical documentation. The applicant went on to say he had relatives in Adelaide and an agent had told him he could enrol there but he decided to stay where he was and attend the Advanced Diploma of Accounting. The applicant was asked whether he sought any assistance from Macquarie University about homesickness or any difficulties he might have with the course and he replied that he had but was told just to “come to the university and you will be alright”. When asked to clarify the applicant said he told the university he wanted to move to Adelaide and asked them for a release letter but was advised he would need to leave Australia and reapply.

10. Using the interpreter, the applicant said he contacted the university and was told he had to either exit Australia or start at the university. He was asked if he sought any other assistance so he could study the intensive program and he said he did not. The applicant also claimed he asked for a transfer to another university but was not allowed to. He said he went to a psychologist who told him he should move to Adelaide where he had family and he asked Macquarie University to give him a release to transfer but was denied. The applicant confirmed he had submitted a medical certificate dated 3 December 2017 from a general practitioner but claimed he also consulted a psychologist. However, he indicated he had not provided a report or letter to the Department or the Tribunal but had given it to Macquarie University. The Tribunal told the applicant he would have to indicate whether he wanted to rely on that information, and he said he understood.

11. The Tribunal asked the applicant to explain how his enrolment at Macquarie University had been cancelled. The applicant repeated his evidence about being told he had to start his course or exit Australia. He said he spoke to his parents about his situation and then took admission in an Advanced Diploma of Accounting course in Sydney. He was asked to clarify, and the applicant said he talked to his parents about being homesick and not having any family around but he was told that they were not on good terms with the family in Adelaide so he stayed in Sydney. The Tribunal asked the applicant if it was correct his enrolment at Macquarie University was cancelled and he confirmed it was. The applicant agreed he had no further intention to study the bachelor’s degree after enrolling in an Advanced Diploma. Regarding the reason why he changed to accounting, the applicant said an agent in Pakistan told him that since he had a background in science, he could only study in that area, so he chose psychology. However, he claimed that on arrival he found out he could study accounting without having a background in the subject.

12. The applicant confirmed he enrolled in an Advanced Diploma course on 16 November 2017 but not a bachelor’s degree. He said this was because he did not have an adequate IELTS score and he had to take a diploma course first. On being asked why he did not enrol in both, he said he did not have enough funds at the time and had not told his parents but was intending to enrol in a bachelor’s degree later. He said he was worried his parents would be think he may not be taking the right course and he also thought the funds paid to Macquarie University would be transferred to another college. The Tribunal asked the applicant if he understood it was condition of his visa that he be enrolled in a bachelor level course. The applicant claimed his agent told him he would be able to enrol in another university once he had the funds available, and that Macquarie University would transfer the fees to the institution.

13. Regarding his enrolment in an Advanced Diploma of Accounting, the applicant said he had attended the course and completed some subjects. He was asked what subjects he completed, he replied he had gone to the college, but then received the cancellation. The applicant was asked why he had not enrolled in a bachelor’s degree when he received the NOICC. He said he had not been aware but if he had, he would have done it. The applicant confirmed he had received the NOICC dated 29 January 2018 and provided a response. It was put to him that the NOICC contained the information that he was not enrolled in a bachelor’s degree. The applicant repeated he had not been aware. The Tribunal advised the applicant that the NOICC was clear in that respect, but the applicant said he had not known that if he took admission in a bachelor’s degree, his visa might not be cancelled. The Tribunal told the applicant the obligation was on him to ensure he was enrolled in a bachelor’s degree. According to the applicant, he believed he could enrol in a diploma course leading to a bachelor’s degree because he had been intending to take an intensive program leading to a degree. The applicant said he had not asked for funds from his family to enrol in a degree because he had not wanted to worry them, but he had told them about his visa being cancelled.

14. The Tribunal asked if the applicant has enrolled to study since his visa had been cancelled. He said he could not continue with the course he was enrolled in and was not able to enrol elsewhere because he did not have a valid visa. The applicant claimed he had not known whether he could study while on a Bridging visa. The applicant was asked if he sought advice from the Department or a migration agent about enrolling to study while on a Bridging visa. The Tribunal asked the applicant what he had been doing in Australia since January 2018. He replied he had been staying with family friends in Brisbane since March 2018. The applicant said he worked “for about a month” in June or July 2018 in a bakery but had not done any other work. The Tribunal asked what he has been doing while waiting for his hearing. He replied he had not been doing anything except living with his family friends.

15. The applicant was asked what he intends to do in terms of study if he is successful in his application for review and he said nursing or accounting. When asked why he was considering nursing he said his parents want him to be in the medical field but because he did not have the grades to be a doctor, he thought he would study nursing before returning to Pakistan. The Tribunal asked the applicant when he decided he might study nursing and he said friends in Brisbane told him about 8 months ago, that it has value in Pakistan.

16. The applicant was asked about any hardship that would result from his visa being cancelled. He said his parents sent him to Australia with high hopes and if he returns without qualifications, they will be disappointed, and it will be embarrassing. The applicant said in Pakistan it is difficult to get jobs after schooling but if you have studied overseas you can get a job. He claimed that if his visa remains cancelled, he will have to study in his home country but will probably not get a job. The applicant confirmed he could study nursing or accounting in Pakistan but submitted the standard of education is higher in Australia which would ensure him a better job and a better future.

17. The applicant stated he has complied with all other visa conditions, apart from not maintaining enrolment in a bachelor’s level course. The Tribunal asked if the applicant has given truthful information to the Department and acted lawfully in Australia and he stated he has. He was also asked if he would face any legal consequences or be required to undertake military service if he returns to Pakistan. The applicant said there are no problems, but then indicated there are enemies who are known to the family. He said that is why his parents sent him to Australia to gain qualifications. The applicant was asked to explain what he meant, and he said in the sense that if there is a threat to his life, this would be the only reason, but there is no issue from the military or from anything else. The applicant went on to explain that some people in Pakistan “owe us some money” which involves a court case, and this may be a threat to him. The applicant said he is not aware of the legal consequences of cancellation such as a limited ability to apply for any other visa in Australia or being unable to apply for another visa to Australia for three years if he returns to Pakistan.

18. The Tribunal referred to the PRISMS and movement records and noted there is no information adverse to the applicant contained in them. In conclusion, the applicant requested a chance to study to satisfy his parents.

19. The Tribunal indicated it had concerns and invited him to respond. He was advised it was a condition of his visa that he be enrolled in a bachelor’s degree but soon after he arrived, he decided to enrol in another course. The Tribunal acknowledged he claimed he thought he could enrol in a diploma and then a bachelor’s degree. However, the Tribunal put it to him that a clear reason he did not enrol in a Bachelor of Accounting was because he did not have sufficient funds. The applicant agreed this was the case. The Tribunal advised the applicant that it may not accept that reason, subject to what he has to say, in the context of the other reasons, for not being enrolled in a bachelor’s degree as it does not constitute extenuating circumstances. The applicant said his only intentions have been to study and he is waiting for the Tribunal’s decision.

    The Tribunal was also concerned about the degree of hardship that may be caused to the applicant. In the period after the Department made its decision, he had not made any inquiries about study, and had not enrolled in any other courses. The applicant said his understanding was he could not study or do anything because his visa was cancelled. The applicant said if he can get a chance, he will be able to prove himself and fulfill the reasons why his parents sent him to Australia. He said he can provide any further documents that may be required. The Tribunal referred to another medical certificate the applicant had discussed and asked if he could provide it within seven days. He said he would be able to provide the document in that timeframe. The representative stated he would like to make a further written submission to the Tribunal, as well as provide the additional medical document.

    Second hearing – 21 July 2020

20. The Tribunal explained to the applicant he had been invited to a second hearing because the Member who attended the first hearing was no longer available. He was told his original evidence would still be assessed and considered in deciding his case. He was invited to provide any further submissions.

21. Regarding any compelling need to remain in Australia, the applicant said he wants to continue studying because it is the reason he came. He said he would like to study either nursing or aviation (engineering). The applicant agreed he had come to study psychology but said he may pursue nursing due to his medical background, or aviation engineering because he has friends taking it. He claimed his career plans are to complete a bachelor’s degree and pursue a career in his home country. When asked about hardship, the applicant said he is the only son of his parents. He repeated his evidence at the first hearing that he had no friends when he arrived in Australia and an agent advised he could transfer to Adelaide. He claimed he was told he could begin with a diploma course which would give him a good foundation.  The applicant indicated he had not provided all his medical evidence as it had been misplaced. He requested the opportunity to complete his education because he had resided in Australia for three years and is hoping for a positive outcome.

22. For the following reasons, the Tribunal has concluded that the decision to cancel the applicant’s visa should be affirmed.

    CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE

23. The issue in the present case is whether the applicant, as the holder of a student visa, has breached condition 8202 of Schedule 8 to the Migration Regulations 1994 (the Regulations). If the applicant has breached that condition, under s.116(1) of the Act, the visa may be cancelled.

    Did the applicant comply with Condition 8202?

24. Condition 8202, as it applies in this case, is set out in the attachment to this decision. Relevantly, it requires that the applicant:

    ·be enrolled in a full time registered course: 8202(2)(a)

    ·maintain enrolment in a registered course that, once completed, will provide a qualification from the Australian Qualifications Framework that is at the same level as, or at a higher level than, the registered course in relation to which the visa was granted: 8202(2)(b)

    ·has not been certified by his or her education provider, as not achieving satisfactory course progress as specified: 8202(2)(c)(i), and

    ·has not been certified by his or her education provider, as not achieving satisfactory course attendance as specified: 8202(2)(c)(ii).

25. In the present case, the applicant’s visa was cancelled on the basis he did not maintain enrolment in a registered course that, once completed, will provide a qualification from the Australian Qualifications Framework that is at the same level as, or at a higher level than, the registered course in relation to which the visa was granted.

26. The evidence indicates the applicant discontinued his studies in a Bachelor of Arts (Psychology) degree, AQF level 7 which was the purpose of the applicant’s visa grant. On the evidence before the Tribunal, the applicant did not maintain enrolment in a registered course that, once completed, will provide a qualification from the AQF that is at the same level as, or at a higher level than, the registered course in relation to which the visa was granted. Accordingly, the applicant has not complied with condition 8202(2)(b).

    Consideration of the discretion to cancel the visa

    Having found that the applicant has not complied with a condition of the visa, the Tribunal must consider whether the visa should be cancelled. There are no matters specified in the Act or Regulations that must be considered in the exercise of this discretion. The Tribunal has had regard to the circumstances of this case, including matters raised by the applicant, and matters in the Department’s Procedural Instruction ‘General visa cancellation powers’.

    ·     the purpose of the visa holder’s travel and stay in Australia, whether the visa holder has a compelling need to travel to or remain in Australia

27. The applicant arrived in Australia on 14September 2017 as the holder of a Student visa and was enrolled to study. On the evidence before it, the Tribunal is satisfied that the applicant’s original intention to travel to Australia was to study.

1. The applicant was invited to make submissions regarding any compelling need to remain in Australia. The applicant claimed he would still like to pursue nursing or aviation (engineering). Despite them being entirely different fields, the applicant claimed to be interested in nursing because he has a medical background, and aviation engineering because he has friends studying the subject. According to the applicant he still plans to complete a bachelor’s degree and have a career in his home country. The Tribunal finds the applicant may wish to reassess his future career and embark on a path of study, but he has not demonstrated a powerful or convincing reason for needing to stay in Australia. The Tribunal is not satisfied the applicant has a compelling need to remain in Australia which weights against him in the assessment of his application for review.

   ·     the extent of compliance with visa conditions

2. There is no evidence before the Tribunal that the applicant has not complied with other visa conditions and the Tribunal has taken this into account. However, failure to maintain enrolment and engage in a course of study is a fundamental breach of a student visa and weighs against the applicant in this case.

   ·     degree of hardship that may be caused (financial, psychological, emotional or other hardship)

30.   During the hearing the applicant claimed he would suffer hardship if his visa is cancelled. He indicated he is the only son of his parents; they sent him to Australia to study and if he returns without qualifications, they will be embarrassed and disappointed. The applicant said overseas qualifications have value in Pakistan which would assist in getting a job. According to the applicant’s evidence, if his visa is cancelled, he will have to study in his home country but will probably not get a job. He confirmed he could study nursing or accounting in Pakistan but referred to the standard of education being higher in Australia which would ensure a better future. The Tribunal considered the applicant’s submissions and finds he will be unable to continue living, working or studying in Australia if his visa is cancelled and there will be a degree of hardship caused. The Tribunal places some weight in the applicant’s favour in this regard.

31. The Tribunal is mindful that the cancellation of the visa means the applicant could become an unlawful non-citizen liable for detention and removal from Australia. Moreover, the applicant would be subject to s.48 of the Migration Act and consequently would have limited options to apply for further visas in Australia. The Tribunal has assessed the claims and evidence in the applicant’s case and has accepted there will be a degree of hardship to the applicant if his visa is cancelled, however, it was the applicant’s responsibility to comply with visa conditions. The Tribunal finds the degree of hardship caused does not outweigh other considerations in this case.

·     circumstances in which ground of cancellation arose. If cancellation is being considered because of relationship breakdown, whether the relationship has broken down as a result of family violence. The guidelines indicate that as a general rule, a visa should not be cancelled where the circumstances in which the ground for cancellation arose were beyond the visa holder’s control

1. The applicant’s visa was cancelled because he remained in Australia as the holder of a student visa but did not maintain enrolment at the appropriate academic level. There is no evidence it occurred due to a relationship breakdown. In his evidence the applicant advised that when he arrived in Australia, he was enrolled to study an intensive program leading to a bachelor’s degree at Macquarie University. He claims that following advice from roommates, he decided to change to an accounting course without having commenced his introductory program or attended any classes. In addition to taking the advice of friends who told him his chosen study path would be too difficult, the applicant said he was homesick and under stress. He claimed to have been unaware of AQS levels or the conditions of his visa that required him to maintain enrolment in a bachelor’s degree. Although he obtained a new COE for an Advanced Diploma of Accounting, he did not enrol a bachelor’s degree.

2. The applicant had been due to start his Intensive Program leading to a bachelor’s degree at Macquarie University on 23 October 2017 but on16 November that year, less than one month later he had enrolled in an Advanced Diploma of Accounting. As well as homesickness and concern about coping with his original course of study, the applicant said he received advise from an agent that he could transfer to Adelaide where family friends lived. Ultimately the applicant did not relocate to Adelaide. According to the applicant’s oral evidence, he visited a psychologist and also asked Macquarie University to give him a letter of release, but this was denied. The applicant has only submitted a medical certificate dated 3 December 2017 from a general practitioner as evidence but claimed he also consulted a psychologist.

3. During the first Tribunal hearing, the applicant was asked why he had not enrolled in an advanced diploma and a bachelor’s degree in order to comply with his visa conditions. According to the applicant, he did not have enough funds at the time and claimed to have been under the impression the funds paid to Macquarie University would be transferred to another education provider. Specifically it was claimed his agent told him he would be able to enrol in another university once he had the funds available, and that Macquarie University would transfer the fees, however, the applicant did not provide any verifiable evidence to support his claims and he acknowledged that not maintaining enrolment in a degree had been a mistake.

4. The Tribunal assessed the applicant’s evidence regarding the circumstances in which the grounds for cancellation arose and finds the applicant’s response to any difficulties he was experiencing was within his control. The applicant changed his course of study without attempting the degree program he came to Australia to undertake. Although the applicant could have sought the appropriate assistance from his education provider or health professional, the evidence indicates the applicant did not put any effort into his studies at Macquarie University before deciding first to move interstate, and second, change to a lower level course. It was open to the applicant to put his studies on hold and return to his home country if he was having difficulty living independently in Australia, or he had doubts about the suitability of his chosen course. The claims the applicant has made are not adequate reason for him to stay in Australia while failing to comply with the conditions of his student visa. Therefore, the Tribunal places limited weight on the circumstances in which the ground for cancellation occurred.

   ·     past and present behaviour of the visa holder towards the department

5. There is no evidence before the Tribunal to indicate the applicant has not cooperated with the Department and the Tribunal has given this some weight in favour of the applicant.

   ·     whether there would be consequential cancellations under s.140

6. There is no evidence before the Tribunal that there would be any consequential cancellations under s.140 of the Act.

   ·     whether there are mandatory legal consequences, such as whether cancellation would result in the visa holder being unlawful and liable to detention, or whether indefinite detention is a possible consequence of cancellation, or whether there are provisions in the Act which prevent the person from making a valid visa application without the Minister’s intervention

7. The cancellation of the visa means that the applicant could potentially become an unlawful non-citizen liable for detention and removal from Australia. The applicant would be subject to s.48 of the Migration Act which would limit his options for applying for a visa. In future the applicant would also have to satisfy Public Interest Criterion (PIC) 4013 which may prevent the grant of a visa for up to three years. There is no evidence to indicate the applicant may be subject to indefinite detention because of cancellation. The Tribunal has assessed the applicant’s claims and evidence and considers he had the opportunity to achieve his academic goals in Australia, despite having faced some personal difficulties. For these reasons, the mandatory legal consequences of cancellation do not outweigh other considerations in this case.

   ·     whether any international obligations, including non-refoulement and best interests of the children as a primary consideration, would be breached as a result of the cancellation

8. There is no evidence before the Tribunal that the cancellation of the applicant’s visa would result in Australia breaching any international obligations. The applicant referred during the second hearing to his family having “enemies” in their home country and it being a reason his parents sent him to Australia to study. The applicant indicated that if there is a threat to his life, this would be the only reason. He went on to explain that his family in Pakistan are owed money, it involves the courts and could represent a threat. The applicant did not provide any evidence in support of these claims and the Tribunal places no weight on them. There is no evidence the applicant has children whose interests should be considered.

   ·     if it’s a permanent visa, whether the former visa holder has strong family, business or other ties in Australia

9. The Subclass 500 Student Visa is not a permanent visa.

   ·     any other relevant matters

10. The applicant was invited to provide evidence about his current study plans. At the Tribunal hearings the applicant demonstrated he is still undecided about his future since he is no longer considering psychology or accounting. Instead he expressed interest in studying nursing or engineering, two other completely different fields. The applicant has no clear plans for his study path or career which weighs against him in the Tribunal’s consideration of whether to exercise the discretion to cancel the applicant’s visa. 

    Conclusion

11. The Tribunal has considered the applicant’s circumstances individually and cumulatively. Although the Tribunal finds there are some aspects in the applicant’s case that have been assessed in his favour, on balance, the Tribunal is satisfied that most considerations weigh heavily against the applicant. The Tribunal considers the length of time the applicant has spent in Australia having breached visa conditions to be significant. The Tribunal is satisfied that most of the criteria considered weigh in favour of the cancellation of the visa. Considering the totality of the applicant’s circumstances, the Tribunal concludes that the visa should be cancelled

    DECISION

12. The Tribunal affirms the decision to cancel the applicant’s Class TU visa.

    Wendy Banfield
    Member

    
    

    ATTACHMENT

    Migration Regulations 1994

    …

    Schedule 8

    8202(1)      The holder must be enrolled in a full time course of study or training if the holder is:

    (a)a Defence student; or

    (b)     a Foreign Affairs student; or

    (c)      a secondary exchange student.

    (2) A holder not covered by subclause (1):

    (a)      must be enrolled in a full time registered course; and

    (b)      subject to subclause (3), must maintain enrolment in a registered course that, once completed, will provide a qualification from the Australian Qualifications Framework that is at the same level as, or at a higher level than, the registered course in relation to which the visa was granted; and

    (c)      must ensure that neither of the following subparagraphs applies in respect of a registered course undertaken by the holder:

    (i) the education provider has certified the holder, for a registered course undertaken by the holder, as not achieving satisfactory course progress for section 19 of the Education Services for Overseas Students Act 2000 and the relevant standard of the national code made by the Education Minister under section 33 of that Act;

    (ii)the education provider has certified the holder, for a registered course undertaken by the holder, as not achieving satisfactory course attendance for section 19 of the Education Services for Overseas Students Act 2000 and the relevant standard of the national code made by the Education Minister under section 33 of that Act.

    (3)A holder is taken to satisfy the requirement set out in paragraph (2)(b) if the holder:

    (a)     is enrolled in a course at the Australian Qualifications Framework level 10; and

    (b)     changes their enrolment to a course at the Australian Qualifications Framework level 9.