HOR (Migration)

[2018] AATA 5510

HOR (Migration) [2018] AATA 5510 (20 December 2018)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

APPLICANTS:  Ms SIN FAH HOR
Mr CHAU HIONG KUAY

CASE NUMBER:  1621337

DIBP REFERENCE(S):  BCC2016/575276

MEMBER:Michael Ison

DATE:20 December 2018

PLACE OF DECISION:  Melbourne

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

Statement made on 20 December 2018 at 6:58pm

CATCHWORDS
MIGRATION –Student (Temporary) (Class TU) visa – Subclass 572 (Student) visa – genuine student who intends genuinely to stay in Australia temporarily – poor level of academic progress – maintain ongoing residence in Australia – inconsistent evidence –decision under review affirmed

LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958, ss 65, 359AA
Migration Regulations 1994, Schedule 1, Schedule 2, cls 572.223, 572.314

STATEMENT OF DECISION AND REASONS

APPLICATION FOR REVIEW

1. This is an application for review of decisions made by a delegate of the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection to refuse to grant the applicants Student (Temporary) (Class TU) visas under s.65 of the Migration Act 1958 (the Act).

2. The applicants are Ms Sin Fah Hor and Mr Chau Hiong Kuay who are 38 and 35 year old Malaysian nationals. Ms Hor provided the Tribunal with a copy of the delegate’s decision with her application for review.

3. Ms Hor and Mr Kuay applied for the visas on 9 February 2016. The delegate decided to refuse to grant the visas on 8 December 2016. At the time the visa application was lodged, the Student (Temporary) (Class TU) visa contained a number of subclasses: Item 1222 of Schedule 1 to the Migration Regulations 1994 (the Regulations). Generally speaking, the subclass that can be granted depends upon: the type of course in which the applicant is enrolled or has an offer of enrolment as his or her principal course (Subclass 570 - 575); for certain applications made on or after 24 March 2012, whether the applicant is an ‘eligible higher degree student’ (Subclass 573 – 574) or ‘eligible university exchange student’ or ‘eligible non-award student’ (Subclass 575); whether the applicant has the support of the relevant Minister (Subclass 576); or whether the applicant has applied on the basis of being a Student Guardian (Subclass 580).

4. The delegate refused to grant the visas because the delegate decided Ms Hor did not satisfy the requirements of cl.572.223(1)(a) of Schedule 2 to the Regulations as the delegate was not convinced that Ms Hor’s intended study in Australia would assist Ms Hor to achieve her goals in comparison to studying in Malaysia at considerably less expense to Ms Hor. Additionally, the delegate found the presence of Ms Hor’s husband, Mr Kuay, in Australia increased her motivation to remain in Australia after completing her studies.

5. Ms Hor and Mr Kuay appeared before the Tribunal on 16 May 2018 to give evidence and present arguments. The Tribunal hearing was conducted with the assistance of an interpreter in the Mandarin and English languages. Ms Hor and Mr Kuay were represented in relation to the review by their registered migration agent, Mr Teng Zhao of STG International Services Group, who did not attend the hearing.

6. Ms Hor handed the Tribunal 33 pages of documents at the hearing including a rental agreement, statement from a friend, another copy of the delegate’s decision, a certificate of completion and academic transcript for a Certificate I in Spoken and Written English and confirmation of enrolments for a Certificate II in EAL with a course end date of 14 July 2017, Certificate III in EAL (course end date 14 March 2018), Certificate IV in Business (course end date 14 October 2018) and Diploma of Business (course end date 14 May 2019), email correspondence in relation to a course enrolment cancellation, an offer to study a Diploma of Business and bank account balance statement.

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

   CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE

8. Having regard to Ms Hor’s current proposed course of study, which is a Diploma of Business, the relevant subclass in this case is Subclass 572 Vocational Education and Training sector.

9. The issue in the present case is whether Ms Hor meets the time of decision criterion in cl.572.223. Clause 572.223(1)(a) relevantly states:

   (1)The Minister is satisfied that the applicant is a genuine applicant for entry and stay as a student because:

   (a)the Minister is satisfied that the applicant intends genuinely to stay in Australia temporarily, having regard to:

   (i)       the applicant’s circumstances; and

   (ii)      the applicant’s immigration history; and

   (iii)     if the applicant is a minor – the intentions of a parent, legal guardian or spouse of the applicant; and

   (iv)    any other relevant matter; and

   (b)…

10. In considering whether the applicant satisfies this criterion, the Tribunal must have regard to Direction No.53, Assessing the genuine temporary entrant criterion for Student visa applications, made under s.499 of the Act. This Direction requires the Tribunal to have regard to a number of specified factors in relation to:

    ·the applicant’s circumstances in their home country, potential circumstances in Australia, and the value of the course to the applicant’s future;

    ·the applicant’s immigration history, including previous applications for an Australian visa or for visas to other countries, and previous travel to Australia or other countries;

    ·if the applicant is a minor, the intentions of a parent, legal guardian or spouse of the applicant; and

    ·any other relevant information provided by the applicant, or information otherwise available to the decision maker, including information that may be either beneficial or unfavourable to the applicant.

11. The Direction indicates that the factors specified should not be used as a checklist but are intended to guide decision makers to weigh up the applicant’s circumstances as a whole, in reaching a finding whether the applicant satisfies the genuine temporary entrant criterion.

12. Ms Hor told the Tribunal that she and her husband live in Kuala Lumpur in Malaysia where they own their own house, subject to mortgage. They do not have any children but Ms Hor at the time of hearing said she had completed her English studies and intended to do a year of business studies before returning to Malaysia.

13. Ms Hor told the Tribunal that her and her husband’s family members, being their parents and her older and younger siblings, remain in Malaysia and are waiting for their return. Ms Hor also gave evidence that there is no reason, such as military service commitments or political or civil unrest that would act as a disincentive for her to return to Malaysia.

14. Ms Hor’s evidence is that she worked as a senior counter sales attendant at a power tool store where she earned approximately 2,500 Malaysian ringgit a month and resigned from her position in April 2015, prior to coming to Australia on 4 January 2016.

15. The Tribunal discussed with Ms Hor why she resigned her position when coming to Australia on holidays and handed Ms Hor a copy of her curriculum vitae from the Department’s file[1] in which Ms Hor stated she worked as a senior counter salesperson up until December 2015. Ms Hor responded that she only worked up until April 2015 as a salesperson and thereafter helped her father in law who sells newspapers wholesale and eggs. Ms Hor told the Tribunal she did this work for no payment. Ms Hor also told the Tribunal her husband worked in a large power tools related company as an assistant supervisor where he was earning approximately 4,000 Malaysian ringgit a month but she could not recall when he resigned.

    [1] Department file, folio 60.

16. Ms Hor also gave evidence that she and Mr Kuay have a very comfortable standard of living in Malaysia and they will definitely return to Malaysia at the end of her studies where they will resume living in their own house.

17. The Tribunal finds that Ms Hor and Mr Kuay have a comfortable standard of living in Malaysia relative to the circumstances of others in Malaysia and they have incentive to return home to reunite with their family members and resume living in their own property. There is no information before the Tribunal of any circumstance, including economic circumstances, which would act as a significant incentive against Ms Hor returning to Malaysia. The Tribunal finds Ms Hor’s circumstances in her home country are consistent with Ms Hor being a student staying in Australia temporarily to study.

18. Ms Hor described her and Mr Kuay’s circumstances in Australia including their rental accommodation, limited social life and regular attendance at church where Ms Hor volunteers when she has the time. Ms Hor told the Tribunal neither she nor Mr Kuay have worked in Australia and they rely on savings, money sent by electronic funds transfer by family members and money from family members that friends bring to Australia for them.

19. The Tribunal finds that Ms Hor’s ties with Australia do not currently present as a strong incentive for her to remain in Australia.

20. Ms Hor arrived in Australia on 4 January 2016 on a Subclass 601 Electronic Travel Authority valid until 4 April 2016. Ms Hor applied for a Student visa on 9 February 2016 and told the Tribunal she has completed the following courses since that time:

    ·Certificate I in Spoken and Written English on 22 October 2016;

    ·Certificate II in EAL (Access); and

    ·Certificate III in EAL (Further Study).

21. Ms Hor told provided the Tribunal with a copy of her certificate for the Certificate I[2] but told the Tribunal she has not been provided the certificate for the Certificate II because of a dispute over fees with her education provider and a lack of response to requests for information about the certificate availability.[3]

    [2] Tribunal file, folio 72.

    [3] Tribunal file, folios 59 to 62.

22. Ms Hor told the Tribunal at the hearing she had also recently completed the Certificate III but had not received her certificate yet. Ms Hor was enrolled in a Certificate IV in Business that was due to commence on 15 April 2018 to 14 October 2018, although Ms Hor told the Tribunal her commencement of that course had been delayed until June 2018. Ms Hor also had a confirmation of enrolment for a Diploma of Business commencing on 15 November 2018 and concluding on 14 May 2019.

23. The Tribunal provided Ms Hor with a copy of her Provider Registration and International Student Management System (PRISMS) record and informed Ms Hor it contained information that was potentially adverse to her application for review in accordance with the procedure required by s.359AA of the Act. The Tribunal advised Ms Hor her PRISMS record showed that since February 2016 she has only completed low level study, being a Certificate I and II in English but that she has had a further 13 enrolments cancelled with a 14th enrolment listed on PRISMS as inactive. The Tribunal explained to Ms Hor that this information was relevant to her review because it showed a poor level of academic progress. The Tribunal also explained to Ms Hor the consequences of the Tribunal relying on this information was that the Tribunal could form the view that Ms Hor’s studies in Australia are not to genuinely progress academically but that she is studying to maintain residency in Australia for as long as possible which would be the reason, or a part of the reason, for the Tribunal to affirm the delegate’s decision not to grant Ms Hor a Student visa.

24. Ms Hor was offered additional time by the Tribunal to consider the information in her PRISMS record before responding to commenting upon it. Ms Hor requested and was granted a short adjournment.

25. Ms Hor told the Tribunal she did not know what the course cancellations related to. She said she used an education agent for her enrolments but was not aware of the cancellations. The Tribunal accepts this evidence as many of the course cancellations have common cancellation dates indicating a change to one course has caused the cancellation of a number of other courses that were part of that ‘package’ of enrolments.

26. The Tribunal accepts that Ms Hor has studied and completed Certificates I, II and III in English studies and that each course ran for 26 weeks. This means Ms Hor has completed three certificate courses and18 months of study in her first 29 months in Australia. Given the low level of Ms Hor’s first two courses, being Certificates I and II, and the amount of time taken to complete the three certificate courses, the Tribunal finds that Ms Hor has made poor academic progress in her time in Australia.

27. The Tribunal asked Ms Hor about her plans for the future and what she hoped to learn from the Certificate IV and Diploma of Business and how would this assist her career prospects or improve the remuneration she would receive back in Malaysia.

28. Ms Hor said she was not sure what she would learn from the Certificate IV because the course had not started yet. She said she had enrolled in the course because she would like to learn the way business is being run in Australia because she believes they are superior to the way businesses are run in Malaysia. When the Tribunal discussed this with Ms Hor and tried to get her to identify how she perceived Australian businesses were better than Malaysian business Ms Hor responded that from the observation the way Australians run their businesses is more professional than in Malaysia.

29. When the Tribunal asked Ms Hor why she had enrolled in the Diploma of Business, Ms Hor responded that she expected to learn more in the diploma about how people run the businesses which she hopes will assist her to open her own business in Malaysia.

30. The Tribunal asked Ms Hor whether she could undertake equivalent studies in Malaysia. Ms Hor told the Tribunal that the level of education in English and about businesses is superior in Australia compared to Malaysia. The Tribunal accepts this evidence.

31. Ms Hor also told the Tribunal that the Diploma of Business would be her last course in Australia as she does not have any intention and it would be unnecessary for her to proceed to a bachelor degree or other further study.

32. Ms Hor told the Tribunal her plan is to open a power tool store in Kuala Lumpur in Malaysia by renting a store but she does not know how big the store will be and she will not know how many people she will need to employ until she works out the size of the store, but expects there will be five to six staff. Ms Hor gave evidence of the expected cost of renting a reasonable sized store and said she and husband already have some working capital and can get financial assistance from her husband’s father to fund the rent and set up of a store. Ms Hor expects her husband to be the manager of store and her role will be as an owner as well as in counter sales. Ms Hor was not able to give an estimate of expected income or profit from the store because she said the figures can vary widely but she hopes to earn more than she did beforehand. She told the Tribunal she had a partially written business plan and will try her very best to make sure the store runs well.

33. The Tribunal did not find Ms Hor’s evidence about the value of her study to her future to be convincing which causes the Tribunal concern that Ms Hor is using the Student visa program not to genuinely progress academically but to maintain ongoing residence in Australia.

34. The Tribunal acknowledges that Ms Hor’s plan and study in Australia is relevant to her past employment of working in a power tool store in Malaysia. However, the Tribunal found Ms Hor’s stated plans for the future and her proposed use of her Australian qualifications to be unconvincing. Ms Hor’s evidence did not convince the Tribunal that the Australian qualifications she has, is and proposes to study would meaningfully assist her to obtain better employment or remuneration back in Malaysia.

35. The Tribunal was not convinced that Ms Hor’s plan to open a power tool store in Malaysia was a credible or realistic plan or that on her own evidence she and Mr Kuay would be significantly better off financially if they did commence such a business. The Tribunal’s concerns are based on the lack of detail in Ms Hor’s planning and preparations revealed by her evidence, particularly in the context of Ms Hor telling the Tribunal she planned to return to Malaysia in 12 months’ time at the time of hearing (May 2019).

36. Ms Hor’s evidence about her proposed power tool store in Malaysia did not reveal any planning about the proposed business’ location, marketing, competitor analysis, capital costs, operational costs, stock purchasing arrangements, business licensing, cash flow or profit and loss projections. Even if these matters are not written down in a formal business plan or at all and even if there is no written budget for the proposed business the Tribunal expected Ms Hor, when asked about her proposed business, to at least address some of these matters to demonstrate that her plan is credible and more than a mere idea. Such evidence may have given the Tribunal confidence that Ms Hor’s decision to incur the not insignificant cost of residing in Australia with Mr Kuay and studying, and to spend so much time away from family and friends, was to pursue a credible plan thereby demonstrating the value of that study to her future.

37. The absence of such evidence causes the Tribunal to doubt the value of Ms Hor’s study in Australia to her future. This in turn causes the Tribunal concern that Ms Hor is using the Student visa program to circumvent the intentions of Australia’s migration program by remaining in Australia to study when the value of that study to her future is doubtful.

38. The Tribunal was also not convinced that Ms Hor has a reasonable level of knowledge of her current and intended courses of study. Ms Hor was not able to articulate in a meaningful way why she had chosen particularly the business courses she had and how those business courses would add value to her future career and plans. Given the time Ms Hor and Mr Kuay are spending away from family for Ms Hor to be able to study and the costs they are incurring living and Ms Hor studying in Australia without working, the Tribunal expected Ms Hor to be able to explain why she had chosen the courses she has and what skills and knowledge those courses would provide that she does not currently have that would help in her plan to establish a power tool retail store in Malaysia.

39. This finding causes the Tribunal further concern that Ms Hor is using the Student visa program to circumvent the intentions of Australia’s migration program by remaining in Australia to study when the value of her current and proposed study to her future is doubtful.

40. The Tribunal is not concerned that at the time of hearing Ms Hor’s marriage to Mr Kuay, and his presence in Australia, was a relationship of concern as that term is envisaged in Direction 53.

41. There is no information before the Tribunal in relation to the remuneration Ms Hor can expect to receive using her Australian qualifications in Malaysia compared to what income Ms Hor could earn using those qualifications in Australia. The Tribunal notes Ms Hor was not able to estimate her income from her proposed power tool store in Malaysia and Ms Hor’s evidence to the Tribunal is she has not been working during her time in Australia.

42. The Tribunal informed Ms Hor that it has a copy of her movement records and explained to Ms Hor what this information is and how it is compiled. Ms Hor’s movement records indicate she has not returned to Malaysia since arriving in Australia in January 2016. The Tribunal told Ms Hor it did not consider this information to be adverse to her application for review because Ms Hor had only been in Australia for just over two years at the time of hearing. The Tribunal invited Ms Hor to comment on or respond to the information in her movement records anyway.

1. Ms Hor told the Tribunal she had not returned to Malaysia because her application for a Student visa was refused on 8 December 2016 and she was concerned that if she left Australia, she may not be able to return. Ms Hor gave evidence she stays in touch with family by telephone and numerous relatives have come to visit her and Mr Kuay in Australia during their time here. The Tribunal accepts this evidence.

2. The Tribunal discussed at some length with Ms Hor her arrival on a Subclass 601 visa and then subsequent application for a Student visa.

3. Ms Hor told the Tribunal they initially came to Australia to celebrate their wedding anniversary. Ms Hor told the Tribunal she and Mr Kuay were married on 20 October 2010. When the Tribunal asked how this related to their arrival in Australia on 4 January 2016 Ms Hor responded that at the time of their wedding, they were busy and intended to honeymoon in Australia but did not and since then have celebrated their wedding anniversary by visiting a different country each year.

4. In response to the Tribunal asking Ms Hor how long she and Mr Kuay intended to stay in Australia when they obtained their Subclass 601 visa Ms Hor replied that at that time she already had the intention to study in Australia. When the Tribunal asked why Ms Hor did not apply for a Student visa Ms Hor replied that she did not understand the Australian visa system and was told by relatives and friends she could only apply for a Student visa once she was in Australia.

5. The Tribunal asked Ms Hor how she obtained the Subclass 601 visa if she was really coming to Australia to study. Ms Hor responded that at the time she claimed on her application form she was coming to Australia for a holiday, not to study. The Tribunal asked Ms Hor whether any of her family and friends, who she relied on for advice, had studied in Australia. Ms Hor told the Tribunal they had not. The Tribunal asked Ms Hor why didn’t she speak to the Department in Malaysia. Ms Hor responded that she chose to rely on advice from her friends and so didn’t ask for information from other sources.

6. The Tribunal expressed its concern to Ms Hor that if she did not tell the truth on her visa application that could cause the Tribunal to doubt whether she is telling the truth to the Tribunal which in turn could cause the Tribunal to doubt whether Ms Hor is a genuine temporary entrant into Australia to study. The Tribunal invited Ms Hor to respond or comment but Ms Hor said she did not know how to respond and did not have any comment.

7. This evidence causes the Tribunal concern that Ms Hor is prepared to not tell the truth to obtain the migration outcome she seeks, which in the case of this application for review, is the grant of a Student visa. This in turn causes the Tribunal concern, in the context of the totality of Ms Hor’s evidence, that Ms Hor may be using the Student visa program not for the genuine purpose of academic progress but to achieve other outcomes indicating she is using the Student visa program to circumvent the intentions of Australia’s migration program.

8. Ms Hor told the Tribunal she has been to China, Taiwan, Hong Kong, Bali and Thailand and has not had any issues with obtaining visas or other issues with immigration in any of those countries. The Tribunal accepts this evidence.

9. Mr Kuay gave evidence that the major reason he and Ms Hor came to Australia was for travel and that only after they arrived were they advised Ms Hor could study English and Business by an agent, which would be very valuable to help them operate a retail store in Malaysia. Mr Kuay told the Tribunal they came to Australia for a holiday for a week but during their time in Australia spoke to friends and acquaintances and observed business in Australia leading to Mr Kuay suggesting to Ms Hor she study two years of English and one year of business. Mr Kuay’s evidence is that during their time in Australia they realised the level of education and business are superior in Australia and this led to his suggestion to Ms Hor to study here. This seems improbable at best to the Tribunal based on all of the information before the Tribunal.

10. The Tribunal notes that Ms Hor did not apply for a Student visa in Australia until 9 February 2016, which was over five weeks after she and Mr Kuay arrived in Australia. This may reflect that they changed their mind (to return to Malaysia) in the week of their intended holiday and then took further time to apply for the Student visa, but this seems an unlikely explanation to the Tribunal in the context of Ms Hor’s evidence.

11. The Tribunal also notes that both Ms Hor and Mr Kuay resigned their full time positions in Malaysia prior to coming to Australia when Mr Kuay’s evidence is they intended to only come for a week and they have not returned to Malaysia since. These do not seem to be the actions of people who were intending only a one week holiday, as Mr Kuay told the Tribunal.

12. The Tribunal discussed with Mr Kuay that his evidence on these aspects was not consistent with the evidence, which he heard, of Ms Hor. Mr Kuay told the Tribunal that Ms Hor’s proficiency in English is not as good as his and she has trouble expressing herself. The Tribunal found this explanation unconvincing as Ms Hor gave her evidence clearly with the assistance of an interpreter, spontaneously and her answers to a series of questions from the Tribunal on these issues were consistent and credible.

13. The Tribunal informed Ms Hor, in accordance with the procedure required by s.359AA of the Act, that Mr Kuay’s evidence about the purpose of their travel to Australia was not consistent with her evidence as Mr Kuay said they only decided to seek a Student visa when in Australia and came as genuine visitors whilst Ms Hor’s evidence was she had decided to study in Australia before they came to Australia and used a Subclass 601 visa to arrive in Australia so she could then apply for a Student visa. The Tribunal explained to Ms Hor that this information was relevant to her review because the Tribunal did not find Mr Kuay’s evidence on this aspect credible and found Ms Hor’s evidence on this aspect to be credible. The Tribunal explained to Ms Hor the consequences of the Tribunal making such a finding was that her evidence on this issue would be the reason, or a part of the reason, for the Tribunal to affirm the delegate’s decision not to grant Ms Hor a Student visa.

14. Ms Hor was offered additional time by the Tribunal to consider Mr Kuay’s evidence on their reason for coming to Australia before responding to commenting upon it. Ms Hor did not request an adjournment.

15. When the Tribunal asked Ms Hor to comment on or respond to this aspect of Mr Kuay’s evidence Ms Hor told the Tribunal she did not know to how to respond. The Tribunal asked Ms Hor whether there was anything she wished to tell the Tribunal about Mr Kuay’s evidence to which Ms Hor responded no.

16. For the reasons stated above, the Tribunal prefers the evidence of Ms Hor to that of Mr Kuay in relation to the purpose of their travel to Australia. The Tribunal finds that Ms Hor and Mr Kuay came to Australia on Subclass 601 visas not as genuine visitors but with the intent that once onshore Ms Hor would apply for a Student visa so they could extend their stay in Australia. Ms Hor’s stated willingness to mislead the Department to achieve her preferred migration outcome at the time of her application for a Subclass 601 visa and the inconsistent evidence noted above between Ms Hor and Mr Kuay causes the Tribunal concern that Ms Hor and Mr Kuay may not have been frank and open in their evidence to the Tribunal about their present intentions.

17. When these concerns are balanced with other relevant considerations such as Mr Hor’s poor academic record in Australia, her unconvincing evidence about her knowledge of her current and intended study and the value of those courses to her future and her unconvincing evidence about her future plan to open a business in Malaysia, this leads the Tribunal to find that Ms Hor is not a genuine applicant for temporary entry and stay in Australia as a student but is using the Student visa program to maintain ongoing residence in Australia.

18. The Tribunal asked both Ms Hor and Mr Kuay at the end of their respective evidence whether there was anything else they wished to tell the Tribunal relevant to Ms Hor being a genuine temporary entrant into Australia to study. Neither brought any other relevant information to the attention of the Tribunal.

19. On the basis of the above, and having considered the applicant’s circumstances, immigration history, and other matters it considers relevant, the Tribunal is not satisfied that Ms Hor intends genuinely to stay in Australia temporarily. Accordingly, Ms Hor does not meet cl.572.223(1)(a).

    Conclusions

20. The Tribunal has found Ms Hor does not meet an essential requirement of cl.572.223. With the exception of Subclass 580, the other subclasses within visa Class TU all contain an identical requirement. For reasons given above, the Tribunal also finds that Ms Hor does not meet the requirements of these subclasses. In respect of Subclass 580 (Student Guardian) visa, there is no material before the Tribunal that suggests the applicant meets the prescribed criteria for that subclass. As the Tribunal has found that the applicant does not meet a criterion for the grant of a student visa, it must affirm the decision under review.

21. As Ms Hor does not meet the requirements of cl.572.223 this means Mr Kuay does not meet the requirements of the secondary criteria in cl.572.314 as Mr Kuay does not hold a substantive visa and is not the member of the family unit of a person who holds a Subclass 572 Student visa as Ms Hor did not satisfy the primary criteria for the grant of that visa.

    DECISION

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

    Michael Ison
    Senior Member