Chen (Migration)

[2021] AATA 767

Chen (Migration) [2021] AATA 767 (4 January 2021)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

APPLICANT:  Ms Shu-Jun Chen

CASE NUMBER:  1929857

HOME AFFAIRS REFERENCE(S):          BCC2019/2225529

MEMBER:Mark Bishop

DATE:4 January 2021

PLACE OF DECISION:  Melbourne

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

Statement made on 04 January 2021 at 2:05pm

CATCHWORDS
MIGRATION –Student (Temporary) (Class TU) visa – subclass 500 (Student) visa– failed to provide the requested information within the prescribed period –genuine temporary entrant criterion – no current confirmation of enrolment– decision under review affirmed

LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958, ss 65, 359, 360, 363
Migration Regulations 1994, r 1.03, Schedule 2, cl 500.211

Education Services for Overseas Students Act 2000

CASES

Hasran v MIAC [2010] FCAFC 40
Huo v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2002] FCA 617
Kaur v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2014] FCA 915
Manna v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2012] FMCA 28
Minister for Immigration and Citizenship v Li[2013] HCA 18
Minister for Immigration and Border Protection v Singh [2014] FCAFC 1
Yang v MIAC [2-010] FMCA 890

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 3 October 2019 to refuse to grant the applicant a Student (Temporary) (Class TU) visa under s.65 of the Migration Act 1958 (the Act).

2. The applicant applied for the visa on 23 April 2019. 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. In this case the Tribunal formally wrote to the review applicant pursuant to s.359(2) of the Act inviting the review applicant to provide further information to the Tribunal, including information in relation to enrolment: cl.500.211(a).

4. The Tribunal did not receive any response to the before mentioned written invitation.

5. The Tribunal is satisfied that the review applicant was properly sent an invitation to provide further information under s.359(2) of the Act. The invitation was sent to the review applicant’s nominated address, being an address provided by the review applicant in connection with this application for review.

6. As the applicant failed to respond within the prescribed period, s.359C(1) applies and pursuant to s.360(3), the review applicant is not entitled to appear before the Tribunal. The effect of s.363A of the Act is that if a review applicant has no entitlement to a hearing, the Tribunal has no power to permit them to appear see Hasran v MIAC [2010] FCAFC 40 at [26]; Yang v MIAC [2-010] FMCA 890 at [40].

7. The Tribunal has considered whether, in the circumstances of this case, information that the review applicant meets the requirements of the Act and Regulations is likely to be forthcoming and whether the review applicant has had a fair opportunity to provide relevant information already.

8. The Tribunal has given consideration to whether it should adjourn the review under s.363(1)(b) of the Act to allow the applicant additional time in which to provide further evidence to support the review application. In doing so, the Tribunal has had regard to the decisions in Huo v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2002] FCA 617 and Manna v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2012] FMCA 28 where the Courts have held that the Tribunal is not required to indefinitely defer its decision-making processes. It has also had regard to Minister for Immigration and Citizenship v Li [2013] HCA18 (8 May 2013) regarding the reasonableness of any request for an adjournment, and the Full Federal Court decision in Minister for Immigration and Border Protection v Singh [2014] FCAFC (4 February 2014) which considered analogous issues, as well as the recent decision of Kaur v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2014 FCA 915 (28 August 2014).

9. On 14 December 2020 the Tribunal wrote to the applicant and requested she provide further information as to current enrolment in a course of study by 29 December 2020. The applicant did not respond to this further request for information. In these circumstances, for the reasons set out in this decision record above, the Tribunal considers that the review applicant has had a fair opportunity to provide relevant information.

10. Accordingly, the Tribunal has decided not to exercise its discretion under s.363(1)(b) of the Act to adjourn the review any further to allow the review applicant more time. In these circumstances, the Tribunal has decided to proceed to make a decision having regard to the information it has before it, including the information previously provided by the review applicant to the Department.

11. Ultimately, a decision maker is not required to make the review applicant’s case. It is for the review applicant to satisfy the Tribunal that the requirements of the Act and Regulations have been met. Although the concept of onus of proof is not appropriate to administrative decision-making, the relevant facts of the individual case have to be supplied by the review applicant, in as much detail as is necessary to enable the examiner to establish the relevant facts.

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

    CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE

13. 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.

14. While the determinative issue before the delegate was whether the applicant met the genuine temporary entrant criteria under clause 500.212 of the Regulations, the material and evidence before the Tribunal indicate that she is not currently enrolled in a registered course of study.

    Enrolment (cl.500.211)

15. 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.

16. ‘Course of study’ is relevantly defined in cl.500.111 of the Regulations as a ‘full-time registered course’. ‘Registered course’ is defined in r.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, to provide the course to overseas students.

    Significance of Enrolment Criterion

17. Producing evidence of current enrolment is a critical first step towards obtaining a student visa. Such evidence shows that the applicant has, prior to the Tribunal making its decision, entered into a legally binding contract with a registered course provider. That contract gives rise to several significant obligations. First, it obliges the course provider to provide the applicant with a pre-determined course of education or training over a specified period. Second, it obliges the applicant to pay for the course. Third, it obliges the applicant to complete the course requirements to receive a testament from the course provider as to what the applicant has achieved by way of formal qualification. An enrolment therefore represents a present and operating commitment by the applicant to complete a course of study. It is persuasive evidence of a tangible and immediate need for a student visa.

18. An enrolment continues to be of legal significance once a student visa is issued. All student visas are subject to a condition that the visa holder remains enrolled in a registered course of study. That condition operates on a continuing basis every day the visa remains valid. If a student visa is issued to an applicant who is not enrolled in a course of study, the visa will be breached as soon as it is granted.

19. The Tribunal must therefore be presented with evidence that shows the applicant is currently enrolled in a registered course of study. Absent such evidence, a student visa cannot sensibly be grated. Indeed, in any case for a student visa, consideration of whether all other primary criteria are met, as contained in clauses 500.211-500.218 of the Regulations, is premised on the enrolment criterion in clause 500.211 first being satisfied. If clause 500.211 is not met, there is no administrative utility in the Tribunal proceeding to consider any further primary criteria.

20. Clause 500.211 provides:

    500.211 One of the following applies:

    (a) the applicant is enrolled in a course of study;

    (b) if the application is made in Australia—the applicant is seeking to remain in Australia because the relevant educational institution requires the applicant to do so during the marking of the applicant’s postgraduate thesis;

    (c) if the applicant is a Foreign Affairs student—the applicant has the support of     the Foreign Minister for the grant of the visa;

    (d) if the applicant is a Defence student—the applicant has the support of the Defence Minister for the grant of the visa.

21. The applicant provided a copy of  COE’s in a course of General English (COE number  A832C792), Certificate IV in Business (COE number A8333479) and a Diploma in Business (COE number A8334024) to the Department. These COE’s had all expired at time of decision. As the COE’s had expired the Tribunal gives them no weight.

22. In her Application for a Student Visa dated 23 April 2019 the applicant declared she held three COE’s as outlined above in paragraph 21 and did not otherwise hold evidence of her intended study in Australia These COE’s had all expired by 20 November 2020.  The Tribunal gives the declaration no weight.

23. On 15 October 2020 the Tribunal wrote to the applicant and advised as follows:

    “As you applied for the visa on the basis of undertaking a course of study in Australia, it is a requirement of the visa for you to be:

    ·enrolled in a registered course of study; and

    ·a genuine applicant for entry and stay as a student.

    Accordingly, you will need to provide sufficient information to satisfy us that you meet both of these visa requirements and you are now invited to give, in writing, all relevant information about the course (s) of study you are undertaking and your entry and stay in Australia as a student… by 29 October 2020”

24. As outlined in paragraph 3 above on 15 October 2020 the Tribunal forwarded to the applicant a “Request for Student Visa Information under s.359 (2) of the Migration Act 1958”. The Tribunal asked the applicant if she had a “current Confirmation of Enrolment in a registered course of study”. The Tribunal informed the applicant in writing “not being enrolled in a registered course of study may be a reason, or part of a reason, for the Tribunal affirming the decision under review, even if this is not the same criteria or issue considered by the primary decision maker”.

25. The Tribunal is of the view the applicant was in receipt of written notice that in the review application the determinative issue was proof of enrolment in an approved course of study.

26. The applicant did not respond to this request for information made under s.359(2) of the Act.

27. On 14 December 2020 the Tribunal forwarded to the applicant a further “Request for Student Visa Information under s.359 (2) of the Migration Act 1958”. The Tribunal advised the applicant as follows:

    In conducting the review, we are required by the Migration Act 1958 to invite you to comment on or respond to certain information which we consider would, subject to your comments or response, be the reason, or a part of the reason, for affirming the decision under review.

    Please note, however, that we have not made up our mind about the information.

    The particulars of the information are:

    ·Cancellation or expiry of Confirmation-of-Enrolment (COE) (please see the attached information below)

    This information is relevant to the review because clause 500.211(a) requires that you are enrolled in a course of study. This may be the determinative issue upon which the Tribunal decides your matter.

    If we rely on this information in making our decision, it may be a part of the reason or the reason for the Tribunal’s deciding that requirements for the visa are not met, which may then mean the decision under review and which refused to grant you the visa is affirmed.

28. You are invited to give comments on or respond to the above information in writing. Your comments or response should be received by 29 December 2020.

29. The applicant did not provide a copy of a current COE to the Tribunal.

30. The applicant did not provide a further written response to this further s.359(2) Request for Information.

31. The applicant did not respond to the Tribunal in any way.

32. Despite multiple requests the applicant has not provided a copy of a current COE or any form of proof of enrolment in an approved course to the Tribunal.

33. Crucially however, the Tribunal does not have before it current evidence that the review applicant is presently enrolled in a course of study as required by cl.500.211(a). It follows that the Tribunal is not satisfied that the review applicant is presently enrolled in a course of study as required by cl.500.211(a).

34. Accordingly, the decision under review must be affirmed.

    DECISION

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

    Mark Bishop
    Member