Evgenis (Migration)

[2020] AATA 1091

Evgenis (Migration) [2020] AATA 1091 (24 March 2020)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

APPLICANTS:  Mr. Georgios Evgenis
Ms. Chrysovalanti Asteri

CASE NUMBER:  1823726

HOME AFFAIRS REFERENCE(S):          BCC2018/2502726

MEMBER:P. Adami

DATE:24 March 2020

PLACE OF DECISION:  Melbourne, Victoria

DECISION:The Tribunal affirms the decisions not to grant the applicants Student (Temporary) (Class TU) visas.

Statement made on 24 March 2020 at 7:47pm

CATCHWORDS
MIGRATION –Student (Temporary) (Class TU) visa – subclass 500 (Student) visa – applicant failed to provide requested information – no entitlement to a hearing–genuine temporary entrant criterion not met –no current confirmation of enrolment–decision under review affirmed

LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958, ss 65, 359, 360, 363, 499
Migration Regulations 1994, r 1.03, Schedule 2, cls 500.211, 500.212
Education Services for Overseas Students Act 2000

CASES
Hasran v MIAC [2010] FCAFC 40

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 9 August 2018 to refuse to grant the applicants Student (Temporary) (Class TU) visas under s.65 of the Migration Act 1958 (the Act).

2. The applicants applied for the visas on 4 July 2018. At the time of application, Class TU contained two subclasses: Subclass 500 (Student) and Subclass 590 (Student Guardian). The primary visa applicant (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. The delegate in this case refused to grant the visa on the basis that the applicant did not satisfy the requirements of cl.500.212(a) of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994 (the Regulations), because the delegate was not satisfied that the primary applicant genuinely intends to stay temporarily in Australia as a full time student.

4. On 24 February 2020, the Tribunal formally wrote to the primary review applicant via his registered migration agent Mr. Bill Mitroulas of Questra Immigration Pty. Ltd., pursuant to section 359(2) of the Act, inviting the primary applicant to provide further information to the Tribunal, including information as to his enrolment. The Tribunal has not received a response to the written invitation. The Tribunal has considered the material in the Department file and the Tribunal file.

5. The Tribunal is satisfied that the primary review applicant was properly sent an invitation to provide further information under section 359(2) of the Act. The invitation was sent to Mr. Mitroulas at the email address provided by the review applicant in connection with his 16 August 2018 application for review.

6. Where an applicant is invited to provide further information under section 359(2) of the Act and fails to provide that information within the prescribed period, the Tribunal may make a decision on the review without taking any further action: section 359C(1).

7. The Tribunal finds that the primary review applicant did not provide further information as requested. In these circumstances, the primary review applicant is not entitled to appear before the Tribunal: section 360(3). Crucially, the effect of section 363A of the Act is that if a review applicant has no entitlement to a hearing, the Tribunal has no power to permit the review applicant to appear: Hasran v MIAC [2010] FCAFC 40.

8. It is appropriate to highlight that a decision maker is not required to make the applicant’s case. It is for the 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 applicant, in as much detail as is necessary to enable the examiner to establish the relevant facts.

   CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE

9. 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.

10. Clause 500.211 relevantly requires that at the time of this decision the applicant is enrolled in a course of study:

    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.

11. ‘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. The applicant does not claim to meet any of the alternative criteria in cl.500.211.

12. The Tribunal observes that when the primary applicant applied for the student visa to the Department he confirmed that he was then, a current holder of a Confirmation of Enrolment. There is no recent evidence before the Tribunal for it to be satisfied that the primary applicant is enrolled in a course of study as required by cl.500.211.

13. As such, the Tribunal cannot be satisfied that the criteria for the grant of a Subclass 500 (Student) visa are met. The primary applicant does not claim to meet the criteria for a Subclass 500 (Student Guardian) visa. Accordingly the decision under review must be affirmed.

14. As the Tribunal has found that the primary applicant does not meet the criterion for the grant of a Student Visa, it must affirm the decision under review that the second applicant does not meet cl.500.311, as she is not a member of the family unit of a person who satisfies the primary criteria in cl.500.211. The secondary applicant did not make any claims or provide evidence that she satisfies the primary criteria.

    DECISION

15. The Tribunal affirms the decisions not to grant the applicants Student (Temporary) (Class TU) visas.

    P. Adami

    
    

    Member