Chowdhury (Migration)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) considered an application for a Subclass 500 (Student) visa. The applicant sought review of a decision not to grant the visa. The Tribunal was impressed by the applicant's candour during the hearing, noting that despite appearing nervous, the applicant did not prevaricate. However, the Tribunal made no findings as to the specific reasons for the applicant's failure to meet the visa criteria, acknowledging that factors such as the death of the applicant's father, a collapsed lung, and a fatal car accident may have contributed.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicant met the criteria for a Subclass 500 (Student) visa, specifically the enrolment requirement under clause 500.211 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994. This clause requires an applicant to be enrolled in a full-time registered course at the time of the decision. The Tribunal also considered Direction No. 69, issued by the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection, which provides guidance on assessing the genuine temporary entrant criterion for student visas.

The Tribunal found that the applicant did not satisfy the enrolment criterion under clause 500.211, as the applicant confirmed in oral evidence that they were not enrolled in a course of study at the time of the hearing. A "registered course" is defined as one provided by an institution registered to provide courses to overseas students. As the applicant failed to meet this primary criterion, the Tribunal concluded that the criteria for the grant of a Subclass 500 (Student) visa were not met. The applicant did not claim to meet the criteria for a Subclass 590 (Student Guardian) visa.

Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicant a Student (Temporary) (Class TU) visa. The Tribunal noted that while the applicant's personal circumstances were difficult, no Ministerial intervention was recommended due to a lack of documentary evidence before it.