Harpreet Kaur (Migration)

[2021] AATA 906

Harpreet Kaur (Migration) [2021] AATA 906 (10 March 2021)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

APPLICANT:  Ms  Harpreet Kaur

CASE NUMBER:  2005305

HOME AFFAIRS REFERENCE(S):          BCC2019/6928807

MEMBER:Mark Bishop

DATE:10 March 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 10 March 2021 at 11:03am

CATCHWORDS
MIGRATION – Student (Temporary) (Class TU) visa – Subclass 500 (Student) – English language proficiency – non-appearance before the Tribunal – required evidence not provided – decision under review affirmed

LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss 65, 362B, 379A
Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth), Schedule 2, cl 500.213

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 27 February 2020 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 30 December 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. The delegate in this case refused to grant the visa on the basis that the applicant did not satisfy the requirements of cl.500.213 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994 (the Regulations).

4. It is the practice of the Tribunal to conduct “preliminaries” prior to the commencement of the hearing. These preliminaries are a courtesy to review applicants and basically explain the process of the hearing which will commence at a later time. The Tribunal attempted to contact the applicant/MA on numerous occasions immediately prior to 9.30am on the day of the scheduled review hearing. The Tribunal also attempted to contact the applicant by phone to commence the hearing and the applicant did not respond to these additional phone calls (for full detail see Case Note).

5. The applicant did not appear before the Tribunal.

6. On 22 February 2021 the Tribunal wrote to the review applicant advising that it had considered all the material it had about the application but could not make a favourable decision on that information alone. The Tribunal invited the review applicant to give evidence and present arguments at a hearing on 10 March 2021. The invitation stated that if they did not attend the hearing and an adjournment was not granted, the Tribunal may make a decision on the case without further notice. The Tribunal also sent them SMS reminders about the hearing 5 business days and one business day before the scheduled hearing.

7. The review applicant did not appear before the Tribunal for the phone hearing on the day and at the scheduled time. Having reviewed the Tribunal file, the Tribunal is satisfied that the review applicant was properly invited to a hearing in accordance with s.379A(4) and the invitation has not been returned to sender. In these circumstances, and pursuant to s.362B of the Act, the Tribunal has decided to make its decision on the review without taking any further action to enable the applicant to appear before it.

8. The Tribunal exercised its discretion to hold the hearing by telephone. The hearing was held after the COVID-19 pandemic. The Tribunal determined it was reasonable to hold a hearing by telephone, having regard to the nature of this matter and the individual circumstances of the applicant. The Tribunal also had regard to the Tribunal’s objective of providing a mechanism of review that is fair, just, economical and quick, and the delay to the matter if the hearing was not to be conducted by telephone. The applicant did not raise any concerns as to conducting the review hearing by phone. The Tribunal is satisfied that the applicant was given a fair opportunity to give evidence and present arguments.

9. The applicant provided a copy of the decision record to the Tribunal.

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

    CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE

11. 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. The issue in the present case is evidence of English language proficiency as set out in IMMI 18/015.

    English language proficiency (cl.500.213)

12. To meet cl.500.213, the applicant must (if required by the Minister) give evidence that they have a level of English language proficiency that meets the requirements specified in an instrument: cl.500.213(1). This requirement does not apply to an applicant within a class specified in an instrument: cl.500.213(2). IMMI 18/015, which is attached to this decision, specifies the requirements for evidence of English language proficiency and classes of applicants to whom the requirement does not apply.

13. The applicant provided a copy of the decision record to the Tribunal. The Tribunal reviewed the decision record and examined the Departmental file. The applicant did not challenge the findings of the delegate or challenge the reasoning in the decision in any way.

14. On 22 February 2021 the Tribunal wrote to the applicant and requested she provide “Evidence you meet the English language proficiency requirements as prescribed by the relevant legislative instrument”

15. The applicant did not comply with this request for information.

16. The applicant did not provide any material or documents to the Tribunal that satisfied IMMI 18/015. The Tribunal was unable to locate any documents on the Departmental file that satisfy IMMI 18/015.

17. The applicant is required to satisfy the primary criteria as set out in IMMI 18/015. There is no evidence before the Tribunal that the applicant satisfies cl.6(2) (a)(b)(c)(d)or (e) of IMMI 18/015.

18. After the Tribunal had called a No Show the applicant provided two further documents as follows at 10.37am and 10.38am:

    ·Copy of a current COE created 5 March 2021 with a course expiry date of 22 April 2022 in an Advanced Diploma of Leadership and Management with outstanding tuition fees of $5,400;

    ·OSHC policy certificate valid until 7 March 2022;

19. The applicant did not provide any documents that addressed English language requirements prior to the hearing or after the hearing.

20. As the applicant is not within a class of applicants specified in the instrument, cl.500.213(1) does not apply to the applicant.

21. Accordingly, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant meets cl.500.213.

22. Given the above findings, the Tribunal finds that the criteria for the grant of a Subclass 500 (Student) visa are not met. The applicant does not claim to meet the criteria for a Subclass 590 (Student Guardian) visa. Accordingly, the decision under review must be affirmed.

    DECISION

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

    Mark Bishop

    Member

    Attachment – IMMI 18/015 – English language instrument (extract)

    6Primary Criteria

    (1)For the purpose of subclause 500.213(1) of Schedule 2 to the Regulations, the following requirements are specified:

    (a)the applicant must undertake one of the English language tests specified in Column 1 of Schedule 1;

    (b)the applicant must achieve the English language test score specified for that English language test in Column 3 of Schedule 1; and

    (c)the applicant must have completed the test within the following period:

    (i)if evidence of the test is provided at the time the applicant makes an application for a Subclass 500 (Student) visa - 2 years immediately before the date of the visa application; or

    (ii)if evidence of the test is not provided at the time the visa application is made - 2 years immediately before a decision to grant or refuse the visa application is made.

    (2)For the purpose of subclause 500.213(2) of Schedule 2 to the Regulations, subclause 500.213(1) of Schedule 2 to the Regulations does not apply to the following classes of applicants:

    (a)an applicant who is a citizen of, and who holds a valid passport issued by:

    (i)the United Kingdom;

    (ii)the United States of America;

    (iii)Canada;

    (iv)New Zealand; or

    (v)the Republic of Ireland; or

    (b)an applicant who is enrolled in a principal course of study that is:

    (i)registered to be delivered in a language other than English;

    (ii)a registered ELICOS course, as defined in regulation 1.03 of the Regulations;

    (iii)a registered school course; or

    (iv)a registered post-graduate research course; or

    (c)an applicant who is a:

    (i)Foreign Affairs student;

    (ii)Defence Student; or

    (iii)Secondary exchange student; or

    (d)an applicant, who, in the 2 years before applying for a Subclass 500 (Student) visa, has successfully completed:

    (i)the requirements for a Senior Secondary Certificate of Education, in a course that was conducted in Australia and in English; or

    (ii)a substantial component of a course leading to a qualification from the Australian Qualifications Framework at the Certificate IV level or higher that was conducted in Australia and in English, while the applicant was holding a student visa; or

    (e)an applicant who has successfully completed a minimum of 5 years of study in English undertaken in one or more of the following countries;

    (i)Australia;

    (ii)Canada;

    (iii)New Zealand;

    (iv)South Africa;

    (v)the Republic of Ireland;

    (vi)the United Kingdom;

    (vii)the United States of America.

    …

    Schedule 1 — English language tests and minimum test scores

English language tests
Item	Column 1: Test name	Column 2: Acronym/ also known as	Column 3: Minimum test score
1	International English Language Testing system	IELTS Test	(a)    Overall band score 5.5; or (b)    Overall band score 5 if packaged with at least 10 weeks’ ELICOS; or (c)     Overall band score of 4.5 if packaged with at least 20 weeks’ ELICOS.
2	Test of English as a Foreign Language internet-based test	TOEFL iBT	(a)    46; or (b)    35, if packaged with at least 10 weeks’ ELICOS ; or (c)     32, if packaged with at least 20 weeks’ ELICOS.
3	Cambridge English: Advanced (CAE) test	Certificate in Advanced English	(a)    162; or (b)    154, if packaged with at least 10 weeks’ ELICOS; or (c)     147, if packaged with at least 20 weeks’ ELICOS.
4	Pearson Test of English Academic	PTE	(a)    42; or (b)    36, if packaged with at least 10 weeks’ ELICOS; or (c)     30, if packaged with at least 20 weeks’ ELICOS.
5	Occupational English Test	OET	a score of at least B for each test component of the OET.