HUI (Migration)

This matter concerned an application for a Student (Temporary) (Class TU) visa, subclass 500, brought by the applicant, identified as HUI (Migration). The dispute arose when the applicant failed to provide requested information, specifically a current Confirmation of Enrolment (CoE), which is a prerequisite for the visa. The decision was made by Wendy Banfield, a Member of the Tribunal.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicant met the criteria for a Subclass 500 Student visa, as stipulated in Part 500 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations. Specifically, the Tribunal had to determine if the applicant was enrolled in a registered course of study at the time of the decision, as required by clause 500.211(a) of the Migration Regulations 1994. The Tribunal also considered whether the applicant met the genuine temporary entrant criterion, although the central focus remained on the enrolment requirement.

The Tribunal reasoned that clause 500.211(a) mandates enrolment in a full-time registered course at the time of the decision. The applicant was invited to provide a CoE or other evidence of enrolment, but failed to do so. At the hearing, the applicant reiterated his desire to study but did not present any documentation to substantiate his enrolment in an approved course. The Tribunal noted the applicant's stated intention to study English and learn about Western food, his past business dealings, and his belief that his age might have impacted a direct application from his home country. However, without a CoE or other proof of enrolment, the applicant could not satisfy the primary criteria for the visa.

Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the decisions not to grant the applicants Student (Temporary) (Class TU) visas. As the primary applicant did not satisfy the criteria, the secondary applicant, who was not a member of the family unit of a person satisfying the primary criteria, was also unable to meet the requirements.