CHO (Migration)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (Cth) considered the cancellation of a Student (Temporary) (Class TU) (Subclass 500) visa held by CHO. The visa was cancelled on the grounds that CHO was not enrolled in a registered course of study, despite the visa being for an 11-month duration. CHO had relied on an education agent in relation to her enrolment.

The Tribunal was required to determine whether the cancellation of CHO's visa was justified, particularly in light of the best interests of her son, who was a child, and the potential impact on his education in Australia. The Tribunal also had to consider the application of the International Convention on the Rights of the Child.

The Tribunal found that while CHO had not been enrolled in a registered course, there were mitigating circumstances, including her reliance on an education agent. Crucially, the Tribunal gave significant weight to the best interests of CHO's son, concluding that it was in his best interests to complete his education in Australia. Applying the principles of the International Convention on the Rights of the Child, the Tribunal determined that the decision to cancel the visa was not in the child's best interests.

Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the decision under review and substituted a new decision to not cancel CHO's visa.