Ho (Migration)

This matter concerned an application for review of a decision not to grant the applicant a Student (Temporary) (Class TU) visa, specifically a Subclass 500 (Student) visa. The applicant had not responded to an invitation to provide further information, and consequently, was not entitled to appear before the Tribunal. The core of the dispute revolved around whether the applicant met the criteria for the visa, particularly concerning their enrolment status.

The Tribunal was required to determine whether the applicant satisfied the primary criteria for a Subclass 500 visa, as set out in Schedule 2 of the relevant Regulations. Specifically, the Tribunal had to consider clause 500.211, which requires an applicant to be enrolled in a course of study, or meet one of several alternative conditions. The Tribunal also had to consider whether the applicant had provided sufficient evidence to satisfy these criteria.

The Tribunal reasoned that it is the applicant's responsibility to provide the necessary evidence to satisfy the requirements of the Act and Regulations, and that a decision maker is not obliged to construct the applicant's case. In this instance, the Tribunal noted that while the delegate's decision record was provided, there was no recent evidence before the Tribunal demonstrating that the applicant was presently enrolled in a course of study as required by clause 500.211(a). Consequently, the Tribunal was not satisfied that this criterion had been met.

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