Chengadu (Migration)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal reviewed a decision concerning an applicant for a Subclass 500 (Student) visa. The Minister had required the applicant to provide evidence of financial capacity in accordance with clause 500.214(3) of the Migration Regulations 1994, as elaborated by LIN 19/198. The delegate had found that the applicant failed to provide sufficient evidence of genuine access to funds (GAF). The applicant sought review of this decision before the Tribunal.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicant had satisfied the financial capacity requirements for a Subclass 500 visa at the time of the Tribunal's decision. This involved determining if the applicant had provided evidence of genuine access to sufficient funds to cover course fees, living costs, and travel expenses for themselves and any family members, as stipulated by the relevant legislative instrument, LIN 19/198. The Tribunal was required to conduct a de novo review, meaning it had to make its own findings based on the information available at the time of its decision.

The Tribunal reasoned that to satisfy the financial capacity requirements, an applicant must provide current information demonstrating genuine access to funds. The Tribunal had invited the applicant to provide all documents intended to be relied upon, including a current Confirmation of Enrolment (COE) or other proof of current enrolment, and evidence of financial capacity. A COE is critical as it serves as proof of enrolment and provides details of course costs, which are essential for assessing financial capacity under clause 6(2) of LIN 19/198. The Tribunal noted that the applicant had ceased enrolment, which was a significant factor in assessing their ability to meet the visa criteria.

Ultimately, the Tribunal found that the applicant had not met the criteria for the grant of a Subclass 500 (Student) visa. Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the visa.